Retrieve paginated revenue items for a project to inspect and verify its revenue breakdown and totals.
Get revenue items for a project with pagination. Returns { items, total, limit, skip, hasMore }. Default limit: 50, max: 200.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of revenue items to skip (for pagination) | |
| limit | No | Max revenue items to return (default 50, max 200) | |
| projectId | Yes | The project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses pagination behavior, the default limit of 50, the hard max of 200, and the exact response envelope. It omits any statement about permissions or whether results are sorted/filtered, which are the remaining gaps.
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?
Two compact sentences; purpose is front-loaded and pagination constraints follow. Minor redundancy with the schema's limit description is the only waste.
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?
With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape { items, total, limit, skip, hasMore }, and the three parameters are fully handled via schema. Enough to invoke correctly, though lacking guidance on the sibling revenue tool.
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 100% and the schema already documents skip, limit (default 50, max 200), and projectId. The description merely restates the limit bounds rather than adding semantics such as default skip behavior or what happens when skip exceeds total.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get revenue items for a project') plus pagination scope. The 'project' qualifier implicitly separates it from get_service_revenues in the sibling list, but the differentiation is never made explicit.
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?
The read-retrieval context is implied by 'Get', but there is no statement of when to use this versus the closely-named sibling get_service_revenues, nor any preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.