chargebee_list_transactionsList payment/refund transactions. Filter by customer. Chargebee API: GET /transactions.
| 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 transactions 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?
readOnlyHint already covers the read-only safety profile, and the description only adds 'GET /transactions,' which restates that trait. No new behavioral context is provided, such as pagination mechanics, default ordering, or response shape.
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 highly concise with three purposeful fragments: the core action, the main filter, and the API reference. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema plus annotations cover most needs, but the description does not state the behavior when customer_id is omitted (e.g., whether all transactions are returned). Pagination flow is only hinted at through the offset parameter, not described in prose.
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 descriptions for limit, offset, and customer_id are complete and detailed, so schema coverage is high. The description's 'Filter by customer' merely restates what the customer_id schema already says, adding no extra semantic value.
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 specific verb and resource: 'List payment/refund transactions.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invoices and list_customers. The endpoint reference 'Chargebee API: GET /transactions' reinforces the resource identity.
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 tool versus the many list siblings, nor any exclusions or alternatives. 'Filter by customer' is a parameter capability, not a usage criterion. An agent must infer when transactions are the appropriate resource.
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.