Download PDF from URL and run complete invoice analysis.
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_from_url"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public URL to PDF invoice e.g. 'https://example.com/invoice.pdf' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions downloading from a URL, which implies network access, but does not disclose what the analysis includes, whether it is read-only, what happens on invalid URLs, or the return format. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs a multi-step operation.
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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function without verbosity or filler. Every word earns its place; it is concise and easy to scan.
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 has one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain the expected return value and scope of analysis. It only says 'run complete invoice analysis' without detailing what that includes, how the output is structured, or any constraints (e.g., only public URLs). This is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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?
The input schema has one parameter (url) with a clear example and full coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 downloads a PDF from a URL and runs complete invoice analysis, using a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('PDF from URL'). It distinguishes from siblings like invoice_extract (general extraction), invoice_ocr (OCR), and invoice_batch_urls (multiple URLs) by emphasizing single-URL input and full analysis.
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 the tool is used when you have a public URL to a PDF invoice and need a full analysis, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. For example, it doesn't advise using invoice_batch_urls for multiple URLs or more specific extractors for targeted tasks.
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.