Creates a draft invoice from a recurring schedule and advances its next run date after user confirmation.
Generate an invoice now from a recurring schedule and advance its next-run date. Creates a DRAFT invoice. Confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Recurring schedule ID to generate an invoice from |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the resulting state ('Creates a DRAFT invoice'), a side effect on other data ('advance its next-run date'), and a required human-confirmation step. It does not mention idempotency (what happens on a repeat call) or behavior for paused/inactive schedules, which keeps it short of a 5.
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, zero filler, and the core action and its side effect are front-loaded before the safety instruction. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the resulting draft state, the schedule mutation, and the confirmation requirement. The only material gap is what the tool returns (presumably the new draft invoice) and behavior against inactive schedules.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that 'id' is the recurring schedule ID. The description confirms the schedule context but adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.
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 ('Generate an invoice') plus the source of truth ('from a recurring schedule'), which distinguishes it from generate_invoice_from_proposal and generate_invoice_from_job. It also names the second effect ('advance its next-run date'), so the agent knows this is not a pure read or a plain create.
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 instruction 'Confirm with the user first' is a genuine prerequisite and useful guidance, but the description never states when to use this over alternatives such as pause_recurring_schedule/resume_recurring_schedule or waiting for the scheduled run, nor any when-not condition. Usage is therefore implied rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.