list_refundsRetrieve refunds newest first, using cursor pagination and optional status or invoice filters to review and track refund records.
List refunds.
Newest first; pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many objects to return, 1–100. Default 10. | |
| cursor | No | `next_cursor` from the previous page. | |
| status | No | ||
| invoice | No | A invoice id, `inv_…`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is genuinely new context. The cursor mapping it states largely restates the schema's own cursor description, and nothing is said about filtering behavior or result size.
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, and the resource identification is front-loaded. It is efficient but borderline thin given the filtering capabilities left unmentioned.
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 read-only paginated list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the essential calling information (ordering, pagination) is present. Gaps remain around the status/invoice filters and the shape of returned refund objects, but no output schema exists to cover that.
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 75%, so most parameters are self-documenting; limit and cursor are well described in the schema. The description adds nothing about the `status` and `invoice` filters — notably the status enum has no schema description, so its filtering semantics remain undocumented anywhere.
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 refunds'), which cleanly separates it from create_refund. It does not, however, distinguish it from other listing siblings such as list_payments, list_invoices, or list_receipts.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other list_* tools or when to combine it with retrieve_invoice. The only procedural hint is pagination mechanics, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.