get_billsRetrieve supplier bills and invoices owed by the company, with filters for status, supplier, and result limit. See exactly what you owe to suppliers.
Get supplier bills/invoices owed by the company. Shows what you owe to suppliers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 50) | |
| status | No | Filter: draft, received, paid, overdue, all | |
| contact_id | No | Filter by supplier contact ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results represent supplier liabilities, but it doesn't disclose default scope such as whether paid bills are included or how the set is ordered. With annotations present this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences that are easy to scan and front-load the core purpose. There is slight redundancy between 'owed by the company' and 'what you owe to suppliers', but no wasted clauses.
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 read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters and a safe annotation profile, the description is largely complete. The only noticeable gap is that it doesn't state the default status scope when no filter is applied, but the schema's status options and limit default mitigate this.
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 description coverage is 100%: limit, status, and contact_id each have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, which is fine under the baseline since the schema carries the full semantic load.
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?
Description names a specific verb and resource: get supplier bills/invoices owed by the company. It adds the semantic nuance 'shows what you owe to suppliers', which distinguishes this payable-focused tool from sibling get_invoices (likely customer invoices). No ambiguity about what the tool retrieves.
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?
The phrase 'owed by the company' gives enough context to know this is for supplier payables. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this over get_invoices, get_aged_creditors, or other invoice tools, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.