get_preview_invoicesRetrieve a preview of invoices for the current open billing month, optionally filtered by reseller context and grouped by departments.
GetPreviewInvoices — current open billing month preview.
| 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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: nothing about whether invoices are draft or finalized, whether figures are estimates that may change, permission requirements, or whether the call is free of side effects. Only the verb 'Get' implicitly signals a read.
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 compact and front-loaded with no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline — the single phrase does not earn its place as a sufficient definition.
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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to explain what a 'preview' invoice contains and how the results are shaped. It leaves the agent unable to predict the response or distinguish this from sibling invoice tools.
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 50%: resellerContext is documented in the schema, but groupByDepartments has no description anywhere, and the description does not mention either parameter. It could have explained what grouping by department changes in the output, which is the one genuinely non-obvious option here.
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 adds only the qualifier 'current open billing month preview', which hints at a scope but never states what a 'preview invoice' actually is (draft, estimated, projected?). It partially separates the tool from siblings like get_latest_invoices by implying the current month rather than historical invoices, but the resource being returned remains ambiguous.
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 call this instead of get_latest_invoices, get_latest_invoices_for_period, or get_invoice_aggregation_report, all of which sit adjacent and could plausibly return similar data. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.