fiken-mcp

fiken_list_purchases

Read-only

List all purchases for a company, with optional filters for date, payment status, and settlement date.

Instructions

Returns all purchases for the company

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_purchases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`page`	No
`paid`	No
`dateGe`	No
`dateGt`	No
`dateLe`	No
`dateLt`	No
`sortBy`	No
`pageSize`	No
`settledDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`settledDateGe`	No
`settledDateGt`	No
`settledDateLe`	No
`settledDateLt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates a safe read operation. The description confirms it returns data but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filtering limits). It does not contradict 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could incorporate more value without sacrificing brevity.

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's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema) and the large set of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial details like response format, pagination behavior, and filtering capabilities.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 14%, the description fails to explain any of the 14 parameters. It provides no guidance on filtering, pagination, or date range usage, leaving the agent to interpret the schema alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Returns all purchases for the company' uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('purchases') with a clear scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'fiken_get_purchase' (single purchase) and 'fiken_list_purchase_drafts' (drafts).

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 such as 'fiken_get_purchase' or 'fiken_list_purchase_drafts'. The description lacks context for selection among sibling listing tools.

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

Deploy Server