mcp-ispkeeper

list_collections

Retrieve payment collections filtered by date range and user. Use page and per_page parameters to control results when querying the ISP management system.

Instructions

List payment collections with filters by date and user. ⚠️ NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_collections"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number
`usuario`	No	Filter by user
`per_page`	No	Results per page (default 50)
`altaDesde`	No	Created from date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`altaHasta`	No	Created until date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`relaciones`	No	Expand relations: cli,usu

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only provides a warning about error reporting, but lacks disclosure on pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The basic action (list with filters) is stated but deeper behavioral traits are absent.

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 efficient sentences: one for purpose, one for behavioral warning. No unnecessary words; the warning earns its place by preventing data fabrication. Front-loaded with the core action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite 6 parameters and no output schema, the description only mentions date and user filters. It omits pagination defaults (page, per_page), the 'relaciones' parameter for expanding relations, and any explanation of return value structure. The warning is helpful but the description is incomplete for a filtering endpoint with multiple options.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that filters are by date and user, which the schema already documents (e.g., 'Filter by user', 'Created from date'). No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'payment collections', and the filtering scope by date and user. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_collection (single) and other list tools. The schema parameters align with this purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_collection or search_clients. The warning about not fabricating data addresses error behavior but does not help the agent choose this tool over similar ones.

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