credit_note_getReturn one credit note in full by id or exact client name: every negated line, VAT lines, totals, the reason, and the invoice number and date it reverses. Reads only. Use credit_note_list for the ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Credit note id such as CN-2026-0001, or an exact client name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims 'Reads only,' but annotations set readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which directly contradicts that claim. This is a serious annotation contradiction and the description provides no additional behavioral context such as error behavior, permissions, or side effects. An agent cannot trust whether this tool mutates state.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence is dense but well-organized around the operation, lookup keys, and return contents; the second is an actionable pointer to the sibling list tool. The most important scoping detail is front-loaded.
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 covers the single parameter, the exact-match rule, the return fields in prose since no output schema exists, and how to discover ids. For a simple one-parameter getter this is nearly complete; the only remaining concern is the conflicting annotation, which is already captured under behavioral transparency.
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 100% and the schema already states that the id parameter can be a credit note id 'such as CN-2026-0001, or an exact client name.' The description repeats this semantic and adds 'exact,' but does not materially extend what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 immediately names the operation (return one credit note), the exact scope ('in full'), the lookup keys (id or exact client name), and the expected content (negated lines, VAT lines, totals, reason, reversed invoice reference). It is clearly distinguishable from credit_note_list, and the sibling pointer reinforces the boundary.
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 explicitly routes to credit_note_list when ids are needed and states that this operation reads only, giving a clear usage context. It does not contrast with credit_note_pdf or credit_note_text, but it fully separates this tool from the closest sibling.
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.