register_movement[demo: deshabilitada] Records a cash-register movement for the authenticated business ('purchase', 'income', 'salary', 'tax', 'adjustment').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ISO 8601 date/datetime. Defaults to now. | |
| type | Yes | Movement type. | |
| amount | Yes | Amount in ARS (always positive). | |
| description | Yes | Description (e.g. 'Pago proveedor Distribuidora ABC'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not explain what destructive effects recording a movement may have (e.g., irreversible change to cash balance) or how idempotency applies. It adds some context like 'authenticated business' and the demo-disabled note, but fails to disclose critical behavioral implications beyond the annotations.
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 a single sentence and front-loaded with the action. However, the inline list of types duplicates schema information and the '[demo: deshabilitada]' prefix is extraneous, adding minor noise. Still, it is concise and to the point.
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 description lacks essential context: no return value, no prerequisites (e.g., open caja, permissions), and no explanation of side effects. With no output schema, the agent is left uninformed about what to expect after invocation. The demo-disabled note hints at availability but the overall context is insufficient.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description misleads by listing only five movement types and omitting 'sale', a valid enum value. This can cause an agent to incorrectly believe 'sale' is not allowed. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond the schema.
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 records a cash-register movement for the authenticated business, naming the verb and resource specifically. It lists the movement types, though it omits 'sale' which is present in the schema. It does not differentiate from sibling 'caja_registrar_movimiento', which appears to offer the same functionality, preventing a higher score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as caja_consultar_saldo, caja_ciclo_caja, or the nearly identical sibling caja_registrar_movimiento. It only states what the tool does, with no context for when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.
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.