List cashflow invoicing forecasts from Holded API v2 using cursor pagination; set page size with limit and continue from a prior nextCursor.
List cashflow invoicing forecasts (Holded API v2). Cursor-paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items per page | |
| cursor | No | Cursor from a previous response nextCursor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is cursor-paginated, but does not state read-only safety, permissions, rate limits, or anything about the response shape.
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?
Two short sentences with the resource and pagination behavior front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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?
For a low-complexity list tool with full schema coverage and only two optional parameters, the description adequately covers the resource and pagination. No output schema exists, but return-value details need not be explained; the lack of explicit read-safety information is a minor gap given the 'List' verb.
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 coverage is 100%, and both 'limit' and 'cursor' are documented in the schema. The description's 'Cursor-paginated' reinforces how pagination works but adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a clear verb ('List') and specific resource ('cashflow invoicing forecasts'), and identifies the API version. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_invoicing_forecast, but the plural 'List' wording makes the distinction reasonably clear.
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?
Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives such as get_invoicing_forecast or update_invoicing_forecast. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.