Record money received into bank or cash by creating a receipt voucher with amount, date, and customer details.
Record a receipt voucher (money received into bank/cash). CREATE ONLY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| notes | No | ||
| amount | Yes | Amount in INR | |
| bank_name | No | Bank or Cash ledger name | |
| reference | No | ||
| company_id | Yes | ||
| bank_ledger_id | No | ||
| counterparty_id | No | ||
| counterparty_name | No | Customer/member name or flat number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'CREATE ONLY' as a constraint, but does not mention prerequisites, side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or what happens after creation. For a mutating tool this is a significant transparency 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?
The description is very short and front-loads the core purpose. The 'CREATE ONLY' repetition is slightly redundant with 'Record', but overall the text wastes no words.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this minimal description is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. Critical context about required relationships, ledger selection, and expected behavior is missing.
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 coverage is only 44%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond 'money received into bank/cash.' It does not clarify how fields like bank_ledger_id, counterparty_id, reference, or company_id relate to receipt creation, so the low schema coverage is not compensated.
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 action ('Record') and resource ('receipt voucher'), and clarifies the domain as money received into bank/cash. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_payment and create_sales_invoice, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 phrase 'money received into bank/cash' provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to pick. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with create_payment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.