Mark an invoice as paid by ID. Enter a partial amount for part payment, or leave it empty to settle the full balance.
Marque une facture payée (permission payments:write). facture_id =
numéro de la facture dans le compte. montant (texte,
ex. « 500.00 ») pour un paiement partiel ; vide = solde le total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| montant | No | ||
| facture_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the required permission (payments:write) and the behavioral distinction between a partial payment and an empty montant settling the total balance. It omits reversibility, effects on existing payments, and error behavior.
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?
Three compact sentences with zero waste; the action and its permission, then each parameter's meaning, are front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the permission requirement, both parameters' meanings, and the partial/total settlement behavior. It is nearly complete, leaving only edge-case behavior (reversibility, overpayment) unstated.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: facture_id is 'numéro de la facture dans le compte' and montant is described as text with a concrete example ('500.00') and the semantic that empty settles the total. Minor gap: no format constraints or bounds on montant beyond the example.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Marque une facture payée' clearly identifies the mutation (mark an invoice as paid) on the facture resource. It is distinct from the read-oriented siblings (factures, facture, factures_impayees) but does not explicitly contrast with 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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and the partial-vs-full payment nuance ('paiement partiel ; vide = solde le total'), which tells the agent when to send a montant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance or mention of prerequisites beyond the permission string.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.