invoicehub-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the result is self-validated before returning, adding behavioral context beyond annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint). No contradictions with annotations. It clearly indicates it's a generation (mutation) tool that is idempotent.

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 that front-load the main purpose and then provide key usage details. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers input requirements and output format (EN 16931 UBL 2.1, self-validated). However, the absence of explicit return value description is a minor gap, but implied by the conformance standard.

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 description coverage is only 25% (currency and issueDate described). The description compensates by explaining the required structure (seller, buyer, lines) and specific constraints for standard-rated lines, but it does not describe all eight parameters, leaving nested objects undocumented.

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 it generates an EN 16931-conformant UBL 2.1 invoice from structured fields, specifying the standard and format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_supported_formats and validate_invoice, as those focus on listing formats or validation, not generation.

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 explicit guidance: requires seller, buyer, and at least one line, with additional constraints for standard-rated lines. It implies when to use (when generating a compliant e-invoice) but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings beyond the implied purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds that it lists both current and future formats, which is useful context beyond 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?

Single sentence that is clear and complete. 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?

Tool is simple with no params and no output schema. Description adequately covers purpose. Could mention return format but not necessary given simplicity.

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?

No parameters; baseline 4 as per instructions. Description doesn't need to add param info.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists e-invoice formats, both current and roadmap. Verb 'list' and resource 'e-invoice formats' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools generate_invoice and validate_invoice by being a discovery tool.

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?

Description implies use when needing to know supported formats or roadmap. No explicit exclusions, but siblings cover different actions (generation, validation) so context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context on the specific standard (EN 16931 Schematron) and output format (validity and BR-* rules).

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 succinct sentences with no waste. First states the action and target, second states the return value. Efficient and clear.

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 input, validation process, and output are fully described. No output schema needed; description suffices. Annotations cover safety. Complete for a simple validation tool.

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 description is 100% coverage with 'Raw UBL 2.1 invoice XML'. The description adds meaning by specifying the standard (EN 16931) and acceptable types (invoice or credit note).

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 specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'UBL 2.1 invoice (or credit note) XML string'. It also distinguishes from siblings: generate_invoice (generates) and list_supported_formats (lists).

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 validating XML invoices against a standard, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.