List all share links for an invoice with view counts, expiry info, and active/revoked/expired status to monitor and manage access.
List all share links for an invoice, including view counts, expiry info, and status (active/revoked/expired).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Invoice UUID | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID override (uses active company if not set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add useful content by naming what comes back — view counts, expiry info, and the active/revoked/expired status set — which helps the agent interpret results. It stops short of stating ordering, pagination, or whether expired links are filtered out.
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?
A single sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so at a summary level via the listed fields and statuses. Minor gaps: no mention of result ordering, pagination, or whether revoked links are excluded by default.
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 100% with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that filtering is by invoice, but adds nothing about the companyId override or the format of the UUID.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List all share links for an invoice") and scopes it to a single invoice. It is distinguishable from the sibling write operations invoices_share_links_create and invoices_share_links_revoke by its read verb, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent infers this is the tool for inspecting existing share links. There is no statement of when to prefer it over siblings, no precondition (e.g. invoice must be issued), and no note about whether revoked/expired links are included in the result set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.