Finalize selection for DocuEngine service: Bilancio Riclassificato.
Use this AFTER calling 'docuengine_bilancio_riclassificato' 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is the second step of a two-call selection flow, but says nothing about what finalizing causes (order submission, cost, reversibility) or any permission requirements. For a patch/mutation tool, that is a meaningful gap.
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?
Short and front-loaded, with the flow instruction placed immediately after the purpose. The trailing example ('if the search returned options with id and year fields...') largely restates the preceding sentence, costing a little efficiency.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the call sequence but omits the required request_id's provenance and any consequence of finalizing. Adequate to invoke correctly, incomplete for behavior.
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 where 'id' comes from (the prior option list) and when 'year' applies (balance sheets), which is real added meaning. However, the required 'request_id' parameter is never explained, leaving one of three parameters 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 names a specific verb-plus-resource ('Finalize selection for DocuEngine service: Bilancio Riclassificato'), and the service name cleanly separates it from siblings like bilancio_ottico and bilancio_xbrl. It does not spell out what 'finalize' actually triggers, but the operation and target are 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?
It gives explicit sequencing: 'Use this AFTER calling docuengine_bilancio_riclassificato when it returns a list of options.' That tells the agent when to pick this tool and which prior call precedes it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a wrong-path alternative, so it is not a 5.
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.