billingo_list_productsFetch products and services from the Billingo product catalogue. Supports pagination and free-text search by product name to locate items for invoicing and management.
Lists products and services from the product catalogue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1. | |
| query | No | Free-text search over the product name. | |
| 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the catalogue scope ('products and services') and does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior or result ordering, but it also does not contradict the annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and resource directly and wastes no words.
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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. A short mention of the return shape or a pointer to the singular get_product sibling would make it fully self-contained, but nothing essential is missing for a basic call.
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 description coverage is 100%, so page, query, and per_page are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond framing the tool as searching the product catalogue.
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 action ('Lists') and the resource ('products and services from the product catalogue'). It conveys a broad listing operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling billingo_get_product beyond the plural 'Lists'.
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 listing purpose is clear, and the optional page/query/per_page parameters imply catalogue browsing. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over billingo_get_product or billingo_get_product_quantity, so usage guidance is mostly left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.