float_reportReport each float: balance against imprest, what it takes to restore it, unreconciled vouchers with their total, the last count, and the history of what counts found over or short. Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| float | No | The float id, e.g. FLOAT-2026-0001, or its name. Omit when there is only one | |
| limit | No | Maximum unreconciled vouchers listed per float, default and ceiling 2000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what the report contains, which matters because there is no output schema to convey return structure.
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 main content is a single compact sentence with the reporting action and report contents front-loaded. The trailing 'Pro.' fragment adds no information and slightly undermines polish, so it is not a perfect 5, but overall the description is appropriately sized and waste is minimal.
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 lack of an output schema, the description does a reasonable job of listing the report's major sections and the optional-selector semantics are already covered by the schema. It could go further by describing the result shape or how multiple floats are aggregated, but the core information needed to invoke it is present.
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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does somewhat align 'unreconciled vouchers' with the limit parameter, but adds no new parameter-specific details.
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 and resource ('Report each float') and enumerates concrete report contents: balance against imprest, restoration amount, unreconciled vouchers with their total, last count, and count history. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like float_open, reconcile, and replenish_request, which perform different actions.
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 use when a float state report is needed, and the tool name/title reinforce this, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are given, so usage guidance is only implied rather than stated.
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.