chargebee_list_credit_notesList credit notes. Filter by customer. Chargebee API: GET /credit_notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results per page (Chargebee max 100). | |
| offset | No | Opaque pagination token from a previous response's `next_offset`. | |
| customer_id | No | Only credit notes of this customer (→ customer_id[is]). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds the GET endpoint and customer-filter behavior. It does not disclose pagination behavior or response shape, but those are not critical for a simple read-only list operation.
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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information: what it does, a notable filter, and the API endpoint. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the simple tool signature, no required parameters, and full schema documentation, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the response format, but for a read-only list endpoint this is unlikely to block correct invocation.
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%, so all parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description's 'Filter by customer' line adds emphasis but little new semantic value beyond the customer_id parameter description.
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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('credit notes'), and adds the endpoint 'GET /credit_notes' for disambiguation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_invoices or list_transactions, but the resource name and API path make the purpose unmistakable.
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 implies usage for listing credit notes and mentions that filtering by customer is supported, giving some context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling list tools or when the customer filter should be omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., create_customer, get_invoice, list_subscriptions). The get/list distinction is clear, and there is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow a consistent `chargebee_<verb>_<resource>` snake_case pattern. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, and update, which are used uniformly across resources.
With 13 tools covering customers, invoices, subscriptions, coupons, credit notes, items, item prices, and transactions, the count is appropriate for a subscription billing platform. It is neither overly sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides strong read coverage (lists and gets) but limited write operations. Only customer creation and updates are supported; subscriptions, invoices, and other key resources lack create/update/delete operations, making it incomplete for full lifecycle management.