Retrieves the last folio used for a specific DTE type. Provides the most recent folio number by using the SII document code, helping confirm the last issued folio.
Obtiene el último folio usado para un tipo de DTE específico. Útil para saber cuál fue el último número de folio emitido. Requiere el código SII del tipo de documento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no folio exists. It also claims a required SII code that is not present in the schema, which is misleading about the tool's actual invocation.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: it states what it does, why it is useful, and a prerequisite. It is appropriately concise.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully explain behavior and return values. It fails to describe the output format or any error cases. Moreover, it mentions a required input that is absent from the schema, making the tool's contract incomplete and ambiguous.
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?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. However, the description explicitly states a requirement for the SII code, which is not represented in the schema. This introduces a parameter that does not exist in the input schema, causing confusion and conflicting with the schema definition.
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 clearly states the action (obtaining the last folio used) and the resource (a specific DTE type). It explains the purpose (knowing the last issued folio number) and mentions a required input (SII code). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_numeration_summary, which could also deal with numeration.
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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool (to check the last issued folio number), but it does not mention alternatives or conditions where a different tool should be preferred. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.