billingo_get_document_remindersRetrieve payment reminder events sent for a document, grouped into sent, upcoming, and postal-mail reminders.
Returns the payment reminder events sent for a document, grouped into sent, upcoming and postal-mail reminders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sent_reminders | No | ||
| sent_postal_mail | No | ||
| upcoming_reminders | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "sent_postal_mail": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "sent_reminders": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "upcoming_reminders": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the reminder groupings returned, but it does not discuss permissions, scoping, or edge cases beyond that.
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 a single tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and then lists the grouping categories efficiently.
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 tool has an output schema, full parameter schema coverage, and read-only annotations, so the description only needs to orient the agent. It does that by stating the returned reminder categories. Minor missing context about error behavior or authentication does not significantly impair correct invocation.
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 there is only one required parameter, whose description already says 'Document id.' The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema fully documents the parameter, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns payment reminder events for a document. The grouping into sent, upcoming, and postal-mail reminders further clarifies the resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools such as billingo_get_document_payments, but the resource is clear enough to identify the operation.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. It is implied that an agent calls this when it needs reminder events for a document, but there is no explicit routing information among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.