get_latest_invoices_for_periodRetrieve invoices for a specified year and month, optionally scoped to a reseller account or grouped by department. Use it to review billing records for a chosen period.
GetLatestInvoicesForPeriod — invoices for year/month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes | ||
| 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 permissions, whether results are paginated or capped, what happens with the reseller context, or what the response contains. For a read tool with zero structured behavioral hints, this is a complete gap.
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?
It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: a single fragment that duplicates the title and adds no front-loaded substance an agent could act on.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and ambiguous siblings, the definition should explain scope, period semantics, and the effect of groupByDepartments. None of that is present, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish or invoke it.
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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate and does not. It confirms year/month but gives no format or range guidance, and the two undocumented parameters (groupByDepartments, and the semantics of resellerContext beyond the schema note) are left unexplained.
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 restates the tool name and title almost verbatim: 'GetLatestInvoicesForPeriod — invoices for year/month.' It conveys only the obvious (invoices, a period), with no distinction from siblings like get_latest_invoices or get_preview_invoices. This is tautology rather than a stated purpose.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus the closely related get_latest_invoices or get_preview_invoices in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.