Identify vendor billing portals and access exceptions to retrieve receipts.
List vendor billing portals and access exceptions for receipt retrieval.
| 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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the purpose 'for receipt retrieval', which provides context on why this tool exists but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral aspects like data freshness, pagination, or rate limits. Given annotations cover the main concerns, this score is appropriate.
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 that front-loads the core action ('List vendor billing portals and access exceptions') and adds a purpose ('for receipt retrieval'). There is zero waste and no unnecessary detail. It achieves maximum conciseness for the information it does provide.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states what it lists and hints at why. However, it fails to explain the 'verbose' parameter or clarify what 'access exceptions' means, leaving some ambiguity. Given the tool's simplicity, a complete description would be concise but should at least mention the parameter's effect.
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 default false, but the schema description coverage is 0% (no property description). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so an agent has no idea what 'verbose' does or how it affects the output. The description should have compensated for the schema gap but did not.
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 ('List') and a specific resource ('vendor billing portals and access exceptions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like billy_list or billy_receipts by focusing on vendors, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer it's about vendor-related billing data.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like billy_list, billy_receipts, or billy_save_vendor. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have to rely on the name alone, which is insufficient for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.