fiken-mcp

fiken_list_inbox

Read-only

List incoming documents in the company inbox, with filters for status, sorting, and pagination to manage document review.

Instructions

Returns incoming documents in the company inbox

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fiken_list_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`page`	No
`sortBy`	No	e.g. "createdDate desc"
`status`	No	e.g. "new", "approved"
`pageSize`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

While the annotation readOnlyHint: true indicates a safe read operation, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, data volume, or any implications of fetching inbox documents. The description does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for what it conveys, though it could be expanded slightly to include parameter context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response format, pagination, or how parameters affect results, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema includes 6 parameters with only 33% coverage (sortBy and status have descriptions). The description mentions none of the parameters, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. Parameters like name, page, pageSize, and description remain unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns incoming documents in the company inbox, specifying the verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities (e.g., invoices, purchases). However, it could be more precise about what 'incoming documents' includes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing invoices or purchases. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server