Retrieve purchase invoices received from suppliers, including issuer RUT, business name, amount, DTE type, and date. Use for queries about purchases or received invoices.
Lista las facturas de compra recibidas de proveedores (libro de compras). Retorna RUT emisor, razón social, monto, tipo DTE y fecha. Usar cuando el cliente pregunta por sus compras o facturas recibidas.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool lists purchase invoices and returns specific fields, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, or error conditions. The verb 'Lista' implies a read operation, but richer disclosure would be safer.
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?
Two short sentences: the first states the action and output fields, the second gives the exact trigger condition. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it returns (RUT emisor, razón social, monto, tipo DTE, fecha) and when to use it. Nothing essential 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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and names the exact resource: purchase invoices received from suppliers (libro de compras). It also lists the returned fields, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_documents, which is broader.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Usar cuando el cliente pregunta por sus compras o facturas recibidas.' This is clear and actionable, though it does not mention exclusions or compare against a specific alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.