Finalize selection for DocuEngine service: Bilancio Ottico.
Use this AFTER calling 'docuengine_bilancio_ottico' when it returns a list of options. Provide the 'id' from your chosen option, and 'year' if applicable (e.g., for balance sheets).
Example: If the search returned options with 'id' and 'year' fields, pass those values here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| year | No | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a second-step finalization that consumes a prior search result, which is genuinely useful, but it does not disclose consequences of the mutation (e.g., whether selection is reversible, consumes credits, or what happens on an invalid id).
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 short and front-loads the action, then the precondition, then the parameters. The example sentence is slightly redundant with the preceding parameter instruction but still earns its place as concrete guidance.
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?
With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more for a 3-parameter mutation. It covers the workflow and two of three parameters but leaves 'request_id' unexplained and says nothing about the result of finalization, so it is adequate but incomplete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'id' (from the chosen option) and 'year' (if applicable, e.g. balance sheets), which adds real meaning, but the required 'request_id' parameter is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving a documented gap.
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 names a specific action ('Finalize selection') and resource ('DocuEngine service: Bilancio Ottico'), and it clearly positions the tool relative to its search sibling by naming 'docuengine_bilancio_ottico' explicitly. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling patch tools (atto_ottico, bilancio_riclassificato, bilancio_xbrl) without opening any schema.
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 states the exact precondition — 'Use this AFTER calling docuengine_bilancio_ottico when it returns a list of options' — and the follow-on action of passing the chosen id. This is an explicit when-to-use instruction with the triggering alternative named, leaving nothing to inference.
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.