Skip to main content
Glama

stripe_invoices

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Stripe invoices with filters for status, customer, subscription, and pagination to retrieve draft, open, paid, uncollectible, or void invoices.

Instructions

List Stripe invoices.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "secret_key": "<secret_key>"
    },
    "name": "stripe_invoices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
statusNodraft, open, paid, uncollectible, void
customerNo
secret_keyYes
subscriptionNo
starting_afterNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the title — notably it omits pagination behavior (there is a starting_after cursor), any rate-limit or auth note tied to secret_key, and the default page size.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so it is not verbose. But its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 6-parameter authenticated list tool with 17% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is insufficient: the agent does not know how to obtain the required secret_key, how to page through results, or what the response shape looks like. The annotations cover safety but not operability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17% and the description supplies no parameter semantics at all. The required secret_key has no documentation, and the pagination cursor starting_after — critical for iterating a list — is never explained in either the schema or the description.

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?

A concrete verb plus resource ('List Stripe invoices') tells the agent exactly what object is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many adjacent billing/list siblings (stripe_charges, stripe_customers, xero_invoices, quickbooks_invoices, paypal_invoices), so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as which account or API key scope is needed, and no conditions under which it should not be used. The agent is left to infer all routing from the name.

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