Record an inward purchase invoice from a supplier to log stock purchases and supplier bills. Creates a purchase invoice entry with line items, quantities, and rates.
Record an inward purchase invoice from a supplier. CREATE ONLY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| notes | No | ||
| party_id | No | ||
| company_id | Yes | ||
| party_name | No | Supplier name | |
| stock_lines | Yes | ||
| supplier_invoice_no | Yes | Supplier bill number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'CREATE ONLY,' which gives a limited behavioral constraint, but it does not disclose side effects like stock movement, ledger postings, duplicate handling, or required authorization—critical for a financial write 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 extremely brief, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. 'CREATE ONLY' is a useful disambiguation that justifies 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?
Given seven parameters, three required, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how stock_lines should be structured, how party is identified, what response to expect, or whether any checks are performed. The tool is complex enough that an agent would need more guidance.
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 43%, below 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not elaborate on any parameter, including key ones like stock_lines, party_id vs party_name, or company_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the 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?
The description states a specific verb ('record') and resource ('inward purchase invoice from a supplier'), and 'CREATE ONLY' clearly limits the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sales_invoice and create_logistic_invoice.
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 use when entering a new supplier purchase invoicement and 'CREATE ONLY' explicitly forbids updates. However, it does not describe when alternative creation tools might be preferable, nor does it mention any prerequisite such as verifying the supplier or stock items first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.