growwer_list_invoicesLists top-up invoices newest first, showing amounts and dates, with pagination to browse a user's invoice history.
Use this when the user asks about the invoices of their top-ups: lists them, newest first, with their amounts and dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Invoices per page, 1 to 100. | |
| offset | No | Invoices to skip. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest first and include amounts and dates. It says nothing about pagination behavior or how many total invoices exist despite limit/offset in the schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the usage trigger comes first, then the ordering and returned fields. Every clause carries information.
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 usefully characterizes the return (amounts, dates, newest first) and the schema fully documents the two params. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether pagination metadata is returned or how to detect the end of the list.
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 both parameters (limit, offset) carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no paging guidance, such as how to walk pages or a sensible default page size, so baseline 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?
It states a specific verb and resource ('lists' the user's top-up invoices) and adds scope detail ('of their top-ups', 'newest first, with their amounts and dates'). That implicitly separates it from siblings like growwer_download_withdrawal_invoice or growwer_get_invoice_pdf, though no sibling is named 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?
'Use this when the user asks about the invoices of their top-ups' gives a clear trigger condition an agent can match against a user request. It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling to pick for PDF downloads versus listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.