Retrieve line items for a specific invoice by providing its invoice ID. Get detailed billing entries to review charges and usage.
List items in a specific invoice.
Args: invoice_id: The invoice ID per_page: Number of items per page (default: 25)
Returns: Invoice line items with details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| per_page | No | ||
| invoice_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Returns: Invoice line items with details' and implies read-only behavior via 'List', but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, or what 'details' includes.
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 concise with three clear sections (purpose, args, returns). Every sentence adds information, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple list operation with one required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential inputs and return type. It lacks notes on edge cases or how to obtain the invoice ID, but it is adequate for basic invocation.
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 Args section provides meaning beyond the schema: `invoice_id` is identified as an ID and `per_page` is explained with its default value of 25. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this textual clarification is valuable, though `invoice_id` is somewhat self-evident.
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 clear action ('List') and resource ('items in a specific invoice'), which distinguishes it from sibling `billing_list_invoices` (lists invoices, not line items). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from `billing_get_invoice`, which might also return line items, so it's not perfect.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `billing_get_invoice` or `billing_list_invoices`. The description doesn't mention how to obtain the invoice ID or whether this is the preferred way to access detailed line items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.