Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
invoices-mcp

invoices-mcp

by lucasoishi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List supported banks

list_banks
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the banks and file formats this server can read, so you can confirm which invoice files are supported before importing; files from other banks are skipped.

Instructions

Which banks and file formats this server can read. Files from other banks are not supported yet and are reported as skipped by list_invoices.

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": "list_banks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: unsupported banks are not errored but silently reported as skipped via list_invoices, which tells the agent what happens to bad input — useful beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler, nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and 'which banks and file formats' adequately conveys the shape. It is complete enough for such a simple, annotation-protected read, with only minor room to describe the format of the listing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain inputs, and it correctly frames the call as argument-free discovery.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the resource precisely — the banks and file formats the server can read — and the name/title reinforce it. It does not use an explicit verb, but it distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_invoices' skip behavior, so an agent can tell it apart from the transaction-oriented tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: you call it to discover what input is acceptable, and the note that unsupported files are 'skipped by list_invoices' hints at the downstream consequence. There is no explicit 'use this before X' or when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the trigger.

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