overdue_reportGet a list of unpaid or partially paid invoices past due, showing days overdue, outstanding amount per invoice, and total per currency.
Answer "which invoices are overdue?": every unpaid or partly paid invoice past its due date, with days overdue, the outstanding amount per invoice and the outstanding total per currency. Free and unlimited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the inclusion rule ('unpaid or partly paid ... past due'), the computed fields (days overdue, outstanding amount, total per currency), and the service trait 'free and unlimited.' It doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects, but the report framing and output enumeration make the read-only behavior clear.
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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the trigger before the criteria and outputs. Nothing is redundant with the schema, and every clause contributes to call selection or expected results.
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 one-parameter read-only report with no output schema, the description provides the scope, the selection criteria, and the return fields. There are no hidden prerequisites or additional inputs, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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%: the only parameter as_of is already described ('YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today'). The description adds no extra parameter detail, which is acceptable at the baseline since the schema already documents it.
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 opens by naming the exact user question it answers ('which invoices are overdue?') and then defines the resource and selection rule: every unpaid or partly paid invoice past its due date. It lists the output fields, so an agent can distinguish it from broader invoice tools even without opening the schema.
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?
It gives a clear trigger: use it when the user asks which invoices are overdue. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but in a large sibling set the question-based trigger is sufficient context for typical selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.