pennylane-mcp-server

pennylane_create_product

Create a new product or service in the Pennylane catalog by providing a label, pre-tax price, and VAT rate. Add optional unit, currency, reference, description, and ledger account.

Instructions

Crée un nouveau produit/service dans le catalogue. Le libellé, le prix HT et le taux de TVA sont obligatoires.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`unit`	No	Unité (ex: 'piece', 'hour', 'kg').
`label`	Yes	Libellé du produit/service.
`currency`	No	Devise (défaut: EUR).
`vat_rate`	Yes	Code taux de TVA (ex: 'FR_200' pour 20%, 'FR_100' pour 10%, 'FR_55' pour 5.5%, 'exempt' pour exonéré).
`reference`	No	Référence interne.
`description`	No	Description (max 5000 caractères).
`price_before_tax`	Yes	Prix unitaire HT (ex: '100.00').
`ledger_account_id`	No	ID du compte comptable de vente associé.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the three required fields, saying nothing about side effects, permissions, or idempotency behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with zero filler. Every sentence carries relevant information and the required-field note follows immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich schema (100% coverage), an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose and required fields adequately. The only notable gap is the absence of guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including VAT code examples and currency defaults. The description only confirms which three fields are required, which is already captured by the schema's required list.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crée un nouveau produit/service dans le catalogue'), which is clearly distinguishable from list/get/update_product siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as pennylane_update_product or pennylane_get_product. Only the required fields are noted, which is schema information rather than usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server