credit_note_pdfCall this tool to render one credit note as an A4 print-ready document and return a download link valid for one hour: the invoice layout titled CREDIT NOTE, with the invoice it reverses. Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Credit note id such as CN-2026-0001 | |
| out_path | No | Name for the downloaded file, e.g. acme-credit. Defaults to the document id; the document comes back as a download link valid for one hour |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotation hints set to false, the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds useful details like the one-hour link validity, A4 print-ready format, and the CREDIT NOTE layout with the reversed invoice. However, it does not explain any side effects or the meaning of the non-read-only/idempotent hints, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and output format. The trailing 'Pro.' is a compact but somewhat cryptic way to indicate a paid feature; otherwise, every part earns its place.
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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return value (a one-hour download link), the document format, and the layout details. It could mention error conditions or the Pro requirement more explicitly, but the context is largely complete.
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%, so the input schema already explains both parameters. The description reinforces that this is for one credit note and that the output is a download link, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?
The description clearly states the tool renders one credit note as an A4 print-ready PDF and returns a download link. It uses a specific verb ('render'), targets a specific resource ('one credit note'), and the explicit mention of a PDF download distinguishes it from sibling tools like credit_note_text.
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 opening phrase 'Call this tool to render one credit note as an A4 print-ready document' gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the PDF-vs-text distinction among siblings is reasonably clear from the description.
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.