Lists contractor invoices with number, date, work order, and total, optionally filtered by month or folder, so you can review invoice records before validation.
List invoices (contractor, number, date, work order, total). month: 'YYYY-MM', optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | ||
| folder | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "List invoices" implies a read operation, but the description does not state permissions, ordering, pagination, or whether folder scoping is supported, so important behavioral context is missing.
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 front-loaded, compact, and free of filler. The parenthetical field list is slightly ambiguous, but overall the sizing is appropriate for a simple list tool.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should fully explain return values and filtering behavior. It lists several expected fields, which helps, but it omits the folder parameter, ordering/pagination behavior, and usage relative to sibling tools.
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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description usefully explains the month format ('YYYY-MM') and optionality, but it completely omits the folder parameter, leaving half of the tool's inputs undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List invoices") and enumerates several invoice fields, so the agent can infer the tool returns invoice records. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read_invoice tool or explain when listing is preferred over reading a single invoice.
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 only usage guidance is that month is optional and formatted as 'YYYY-MM'. There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus read_invoice, check_invoice, check_all, or other siblings, and no exclusion conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.