List the account's document series (name, year, next number). Use this to pick a valid series for a document's year — creation fails with "Serie ... Anul seriei ... nu coincide cu data documentului" when the account default series belongs to a different year. Pass the chosen name as the create tool's series argument.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_type | No | Restrict to one type: invoice, proforma_invoice, order, notice, receipt. Omit to list all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses the read-only listing behavior, the fields returned, and — valuably — the error condition that this tool exists to prevent in create_* calls. It does not cover pagination or permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5 for a no-annotation tool.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, why it matters (with the exact error string for diagnosis), and the follow-up action. The purpose is front-loaded before the diagnostic detail.
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?
There is no output schema, yet the description names the returned fields and how to use them downstream, and it links to the create tools that consume the result. For a single-optional-parameter list tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly.
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% for the single optional `document_type` parameter, including the enum-like value set; the description adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the account's document series') and names the returned fields (name, year, next number). No sibling tool lists series, and the description makes that scope 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?
Explicitly prescribes when to call it ('Use this to pick a valid series for a document's year'), explains the concrete failure mode that motivates it (the Romanian year-mismatch error), and names the downstream alternative ('Pass the chosen name as the create tool's `series` argument'). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.
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.
