Record inward service expenses like rent, audit fees, freight, or AMC as vendor bills, including invoice number, service lines, GST rates, and date.
Record an inward expense / service bill (rent, audit fees, freight, AMC). CREATE ONLY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| notes | No | ||
| party_id | No | ||
| company_id | Yes | ||
| party_name | No | Vendor name | |
| service_lines | Yes | ||
| vendor_invoice_no | Yes | Vendor 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It adds 'CREATE ONLY,' which usefully signals the operation is limited to creation, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, duplicate handling, or response behavior for a mutation tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the action, resource, examples, and constraint ('CREATE ONLY') in the most economical way possible.
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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling create tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain required inputs, service line structure, validation rules, or what distinguishes this from similar creation tools beyond 'inward service bill.'
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 only 43%, and the description does not compensate. It provides examples of service types, which hints at service_lines, but it never explains key parameters like company_id, vendor_invoice_no, date, party_id, or amount semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Record an inward expense / service bill' with concrete examples (rent, audit fees, freight, AMC). The word 'inward' plus examples distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_service_outward and create_purchase_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 when to use it: for inward service expenses rather than outward services or goods purchases. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer routing from the sibling tool list and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.