Retrieve a paginated list of receipts with optional filtering by status or vendor search, and sorting by date, amount, or vendor.
List receipts. Retrieve a paginated list of receipts with optional filtering and sorting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | Items per page (max 100) | |
| offset | Yes | Pagination offset | |
| search | No | Search by vendor name | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| sortBy | No | Sort field | |
| order | Yes | Sort order | desc |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.9Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max results to return (default 20)"New value: +"Items per page (max 100)"Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Pagination offset",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / orderAdded value: +{
+ "default": "desc",
+ "description": "Sort order",
+ "enum": [
+ "asc",
+ "desc"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / sortByAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Sort field",
+ "enum": [
+ "date",
+ "amount",
+ "vendor"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Filter by match status"New value: +"Filter by status"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "limit",
+ "offset",
+ "order"
+]v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. While 'list' suggests a read operation, explicit confirmation 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information.
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?
The description mentions pagination but does not explain the response format. Since there is no output schema, this gap reduces completeness. However, it covers filtering and sorting adequately.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 lists receipts with pagination, filtering, and sorting. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'search_receipts', which likely has similar functionality.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_receipts'. The description implies usage for listing, but no exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.