send_invoiceMark a draft invoice as sent (stamps issued_at). Re-sending an already-sent invoice is a harmless no-op. invoice_id is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool stamps issued_at and that re-sending is a no-op, but this directly contradicts the idempotentHint: false annotation. Since the claim of idempotency conflicts with the structured metadata, this is a serious transparency failure.
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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The idempotency clarification is useful and brief.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core state change and idempotency behavior, but the contradiction with annotations and lack of explicit prerequisites (e.g., must be a draft) leave gaps. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described.
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?
The description merely states 'invoice_id is required', which repeats the schema's required field. It adds no extra meaning about the parameter's format, accepted values, or behavior. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('draft invoice') and clarifies the state transition ('as sent (stamps issued_at)'), distinguishing it from related tools like create_invoice, update_invoice, or mark_invoice_paid.
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?
It implies usage for draft invoices by stating 'Mark a draft invoice as sent' and adds that re-sending is a harmless no-op, providing context for repeated calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clearly separate overlapping domains (e.g., consulting vs. marketing vs. outreach). Even within the same domain, tools like 'create_consulting_deliverable' and 'create_consulting_document_revision' are unambiguous due to their specific nouns.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., 'create_invoice', 'get_deal', 'list_agents'). The few exceptions like 'locus_determine_from_scores' still adhere to the verb_noun structure and do not break the pattern.
With 124 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for typical MCP use. The tool count far exceeds the '50+ extreme mismatch' threshold, making it nearly impossible for an agent to efficiently navigate or select the right tool without extensive context. Even a large platform should consolidate or expose fewer tools.
The tool surface covers CRUD and lifecycle operations across at least 10 domains (sales, consulting, marketing, outreach, accounting, workflows, ticketing, API keys, feedback, platform metrics). Each domain appears to have no obvious gaps—e.g., invoicing includes create, update, send, mark paid, void; ticketing includes create, update, archive, dependencies, batch, scenarios, validation.