Process multiple invoice PDFs from URLs in one call. Returns analysis for each.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "invoice_batch_urls"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | No | Comma-separated PDF URLs (max 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the batch behavior and that analysis is returned for each, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, failure handling, or what 'analysis' concretely includes. The provided context is adequate but lacks depth.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. No wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 tool is a batch operation with one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain return format and any caveats. It states 'Returns analysis for each' but does not specify the structure, ordering, or error behavior. The gaps are notable but the essential purpose is clear.
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 the 'urls' parameter described as 'Comma-separated PDF URLs (max 10)'. The description adds little beyond this, only reinforcing that multiple PDFs are supported. Since the schema already provides the necessary semantics, a baseline score of 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 processes multiple invoice PDFs from URLs in one call, distinguishing it from sibling tools like invoice_from_url which presumably handles a single URL. The verb 'process' and resource 'multiple invoice PDFs from URLs' are specific and 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies batching with 'in one call' but does not explicitly say to use this when processing multiple URLs, nor does it mention that invoice_from_url should be used for a single URL. Siblings are not referenced.
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.