Retrieve all customers with outstanding pending payments to identify accounts that need collection follow-up.
Get all customers with pending payments
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": "get_pending_payments"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only says 'Get all customers,' which is a read operation, but it does not disclose any additional traits such as data freshness, potential size limits, sorting, or if it only returns active customers. The description is minimal and leaves the agent uncertain about return format or side effects.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that fully states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.
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?
Given that there are no parameters, no output schema, and the tool is a simple read operation, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify what fields are returned for each customer or any filtering criteria like 'outstanding balance > 0' beyond the 'pending payments' phrasing, leaving a small gap.
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?
The tool accepts no parameters, so the description adds no parameter details. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it retrieves a list of customers with pending payments. The verb 'Get' combined with the specific resource ('customers with pending payments') distinguishes it from siblings like get_business_summary and get_new_users, which target different data.
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 description implies usage when needing a list of customers with pending payments, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or which alternative to prefer. Sibling tools like get_new_users suggest a similar query pattern, so some ambiguity remains about when this tool is the best choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.