update_invoiceUpdate a draft or sent invoice's header fields (client, terms, due date, tax rate, notes). Only the fields you pass change. Blocked once paid/void — void and re-issue instead. invoice_id is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| due_date | No | ISO date YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| tax_rate | No | ||
| invoice_id | Yes | ||
| client_name | No | ||
| client_email | No | ||
| payment_terms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotations false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals partial update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change') and state restrictions (draft/sent allowed, paid/void blocked). It could mention side effects like notifications, but key behaviors are well covered.
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?
Three concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. No redundant wording; each sentence adds critical information about usage, behavior, and constraints.
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 an 8-parameter update tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential constraints and alternative paths. It doesn't explain return value details (handled by output schema) or explicitly mention behavior after updating a sent invoice, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 maps several parameters to logical groups (client, terms, due date, tax rate, notes) and notes that invoice_id is required. Despite low schema coverage (13%), it adds meaning beyond raw field names, though it omits currency and client_email explicitly.
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 tool updates header fields on draft or sent invoices, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_invoice_line_item, void_invoice, and send_invoice. The verb 'update' plus resource 'invoice' and scope 'header fields' makes the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly tells when not to use the tool ('Blocked once paid/void') and provides a clear alternative ('void and re-issue instead'). Also clarifies that only passed fields change, guiding selective updates. This exceeds baseline guidance.
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.