Skip to main content
Glama
r28ai

stripe-billing-ops-mcp

by r28ai

stripe_disputes_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Stripe disputes, most recently created first. Use filters for charge, payment intent, or creation window; no status filter, so check each result's status.

Instructions

List disputes, most recently created first. Stripe has no status filter here, so check status on the results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoA limit on the number of objects to be returned, between 1 and 100. Defaults to 10.
chargeNoOnly return disputes for this charge ID.
createdNoOnly return disputes created in this window.
endingBeforeNoA cursor for use in pagination: an object ID that defines your place in the list. Returns the page before the named object. Mutually exclusive with starting_after.
paymentIntentNoOnly return disputes for this PaymentIntent ID.
startingAfterNoA cursor for use in pagination: an object ID that defines your place in the list. To get the next page, pass the id of the last object in the current page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the default ordering and the important limitation that status filtering is unavailable server-side.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero filler; the ordering fact and the status-filter caveat are both front-loaded and each earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the schema cannot: ordering and the missing status filter. Pagination behavior is only in the schema, but that is acceptable given the rich schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the seconds-not-milliseconds timestamps and pagination cursors). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List disputes') plus the ordering ('most recently created first'), which distinguishes it from stripe_disputes_retrieve and stripe_disputes_update. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the list semantics are clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It warns that there is no status filter and that the caller must check `status` on results, which is a useful usage note. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus stripe_disputes_retrieve or when to apply the charge/paymentIntent/created filters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.