billingo_list_bank_accountsRetrieve bank accounts configured on your Billingo organization. Use page and per_page parameters to control the result set.
Lists the bank accounts configured on the organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (1-100, default 25). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the scoping detail that accounts are those 'configured on the organization,' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or response characteristics.
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 sentence with no redundant wording, and the main verb and resource appear first. Every word contributes to the purpose without unnecessary detail.
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 straightforward list operation with optional pagination parameters and read-only annotations, the description provides the essential resource and scope. It does not describe the response shape, but given the title and sibling get_bank_account, an agent can reasonably infer a list of bank account objects; a mention of pagination defaults could slightly improve completeness.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the input schema already documents page and per_page with descriptions and ranges. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' with the resource 'bank accounts configured on the organization,' clearly conveying the operation's scope. It contrasts with sibling billingo_get_bank_account, which targets a single account, making the list-vs-get distinction apparent.
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 indicates this tool is for enumerating the organization's configured bank accounts, which is clear context for choosing it over billingo_get_bank_account. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so the guidance is implicit rather than directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.