Retrieve locally archived supporting documents with their Billy attachment IDs to identify receipts during bookkeeping and bank reconciliation.
List locally archived supporting documents and their Billy attachment IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about the scope (locally archived) and the output (attachment IDs), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any behavioral nuances such as pagination, sorting, or the effect of the 'verbose' parameter, so it is adequate but not rich.
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 that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant wording, and it conveys the essence of the tool efficiently. Structure is simple and effective.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose but misses important context: it does not explain the 'verbose' parameter, nor does it clarify what 'locally archived' means or what 'supporting documents' encompass. The annotations cover safety, but usage and parameter semantics are incomplete.
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?
The input schema has one optional boolean parameter 'verbose' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain the parameter but fails to do so. The agent is left to guess what 'verbose' does, which is a significant gap.
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 a specific action (List) and a resource (locally archived supporting documents) with a clear output (Billy attachment IDs). It is distinct enough from siblings like billy_import_receipt and billy_list, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from billy_list. The phrase 'locally archived' gives context that it is a specific subset.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of which circumstances warrant this tool instead of billy_list or billy_get, nor any exclusions. The description implies it is for archived documents but does not state it explicitly or provide decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.