Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
datagate-mcp

datagate-mcp

by hyamie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_invoices

Search invoices by date or billing period to retrieve invoice details including number, dates, customer, amounts, and status.

Instructions

Search invoices with optional filters.

Args: invoice_date: Exact invoice date (YYYY-MM-DD). For monthly billing, use the 1st of the month (e.g., "2026-01-01" for December billing). period_start: Billing period start date (YYYY-MM-DD). period_end: Billing period end date (YYYY-MM-DD). page: Page number (1-indexed). page_size: Results per page (default 50).

Returns invoices with number, dates, customer, amounts, and status.

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": "search_invoices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoice_dateNo
period_startNo
period_endNo
pageNo
page_sizeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains pagination and return fields, but does not disclose whether filtering logic is AND/OR, default sorting, or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, and the Args list is structured and clear. Each line is necessary, though the return sentence could be more concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description lists return fields adequately. However, it lacks details on filtering logic (AND/OR), sorting, and pagination limits beyond defaults.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for invoice_date (monthly billing nuance) and period_* date formats. It clarifies default values for page and page_size.

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 clearly states 'Search invoices with optional filters', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like get_invoice_details (detailed retrieval of a single invoice) and other list tools.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools like get_invoice_details.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools