get_recurring_invoicesLists recurring invoice templates to view scheduled invoices and subscription billing. Filter by status to identify active, paused, or completed recurring invoices.
List recurring invoice templates. Use when user asks about recurring invoices, scheduled invoices, or subscription billing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status (default: active) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful nuance that it lists templates rather than invoices, but does not disclose pagination, filtering defaults, or return shape—acceptable for a lightweight read tool.
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 with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the usage triggers follow naturally.
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-optional-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The term 'templates' also clarifies what the response represents, mitigating the lack of an output schema.
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% and the single status parameter already has an enum and default 'active' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('recurring invoice templates'), clarifying that this returns template definitions rather than individual invoices. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_invoices.
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 description gives explicit trigger phrases: 'recurring invoices', 'scheduled invoices', and 'subscription billing'. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the usage guidance is direct and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.