Lists all account documents newest first with cursor pagination and filters by document type or status, enabling targeted invoice review.
Every document on the account, newest first.
Cursor-paginated: pass the next_cursor from a response to fetch the page
after it. Filter by document_type or status to narrow the list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| document_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly conveys the read-only listing behavior, the newest-first ordering, and the pagination protocol, which are genuinely useful. It does not disclose whether archived/deleted documents are included, what a returned item contains, permission requirements, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the two operational facts an agent needs (ordering and pagination). Nothing is redundant; every sentence adds information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple paginated list with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering and cursor mechanics, which is most of what matters. It leaves gaps around the shape of returned items, whether the response exposes total counts, and the undocumented limit parameter, which an agent would need to page efficiently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains that status and document_type act as narrowing filters and that the cursor value comes from a prior response's next_cursor field. It omits the limit parameter entirely (default 50, max 100) and never lists valid values for status or document_type, so two of four parameters remain semantically thin.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Every document on the account, newest first" states the resource, the scope (account-wide) and the ordering, so an agent knows this is a bulk list rather than a single fetch. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like document_get or find_operation, but the plural/whole-account framing makes the distinction reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives concrete follow-on guidance for pagination (pass the next_cursor from a response) and suggests filtering by document_type or status to narrow results. However, it never says when to choose this over find_operation or how to retrieve a single document (document_get), and gives no guidance on expected result volume or when to prefer a search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.