revenue_forecastThe accounting forecast for a year, as on docket's Forecast page: per month the expected revenue and how much of it is paid, totals of confirmed quotations, invoiced amounts and external costs, and the quotations and invoices behind it — optionally for one customer. Net amounts. Admins only, as in docket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Default: this year | |
| customer_id | No | From search_customers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the read-only annotations: it states that access is admin-only and that amounts are net. It also describes the returned forecast components in detail, which is valuable because there is no output schema.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause adds relevant detail about the forecast contents or access. It is slightly long and runs as a single sentence, but there is little wasted wording.
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?
With read-only annotations, full schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining what the forecast returns and that access is restricted to admins. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool, with only minor room for additional guidance about related tools.
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 already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including that year defaults to the current year and customer_id comes from search_customers. The description reinforces that the customer filter is optional and that the forecast is yearly, but it does not add much beyond the schema's own semantics.
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 identifies a yearly accounting revenue forecast and enumerates the specific data returned: monthly expected revenue, paid amounts, confirmed quotations, invoices, external costs, and underlying documents. It is more specific than the name alone, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as financial_summary.
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?
It implies usage by describing the forecast scope and says results can optionally be limited to one customer, and it states an admin-only prerequisite. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over financial_summary or other financial tools, and no exclusions are mentioned.
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.