Create a sales receipt in KikoBooks to record an instant sale and payment in one step, without a separate invoice. Requires a receipt date and at least one line item.
Create a sales receipt in KikoBooks. Sales receipts record instant payment+sale in one step (no separate invoice needed). Requires date and at least one line item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salesReceipt | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Requires date and at least one line item' merely restates schema requiredness; it says nothing about GL/deposit-account side effects, permission needs, reversibility (no void/delete sibling for sales receipts), idempotency, or the response. For a posting mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the conceptual distinction, then the requirement. No filler, though the requirements sentence duplicates information the schema already mandates.
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 nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits side effects, required permissions, failure modes, and what the call returns. What an agent needs to call this safely and correctly is largely absent.
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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0% and the description compensates only by restating the required fields (ReceiptDate, Lines) that the schema already enforces. It adds no format hints, defaults, or meaning for the many optional nested fields such as DepositToAccount_Id, PaymentMethodCode, or Customer_Id's walk-in behavior.
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 (create a sales receipt) and goes further by defining what a sales receipt represents in accounting terms — an instant payment+sale with no separate invoice. That definition implicitly separates it from create_invoice without naming the sibling explicitly, so it stops just short of a 5.
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 parenthetical 'no separate invoice needed' is effectively a use-this-instead-of-an-invoice rule and gives an agent a clear condition for choosing this tool over create_invoice. It stops short of 5 because no alternative is named outright and no when-not-to-use case (e.g. credit sales) is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.