get_latest_invoicesRetrieves invoices for the authenticated account, with optional reseller context and department grouping, so AI assistants can review billing data.
GetLatestInvoices for the authenticated account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resellerContext | No | Optional reseller context Account ID (omit if unused) | |
| groupByDepartments | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: no result limit/ordering, no pagination, no note that it is a read-only operation, and no mention of the reseller-context scoping implications. 'Authenticated account' implies implicit auth scoping, which is the only behavioral hint.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, but the one line is appropriately sized for what little it says.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, two parameters (one undocumented) and multiple near-identical sibling tools for invoices, the definition leaves an agent unable to predict results or choose confidently. It should at least define 'latest' and state the relationship to get_latest_invoices_for_period.
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 only 50%: resellerContext is documented in the schema, but groupByDepartments has no description anywhere. The description text adds zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.
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 essentially restates the tool name and title ('GetLatestInvoices' -> 'Get latest invoices'), adding only 'for the authenticated account'. It gives no indication of what 'latest' means (count, timeframe, ordering) and does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling get_latest_invoices_for_period or get_preview_invoices.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_latest_invoices_for_period, get_preview_invoices, or get_invoice_aggregation_report. A caller facing several invoice-related siblings gets no routing signal at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.