Emails a receipt to a recipient address by specifying its receipt number and email; optionally use a company name or ID.
E-mail a receipt to the given address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Recipient e-mail address | ||
| company | No | Company name (or part of it) or Számlázz.hu company id. Optional: defaults to the login's current company. list_companies lists the choices. | |
| receiptNumber | Yes | Number of the receipt to send |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the concrete external side effect of sending an e-mail, but does not clarify duplicate sends on retry, queued versus completed delivery, failure behavior, or whether the receipt itself is modified.
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 single sentence is direct, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundancy. Its operational omissions are assessed in the other dimensions rather than being a problem with wording or structure.
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?
Three flat, fully documented parameters and the supplied annotations make the definition minimally sufficient for selection and invocation. However, with no output schema, the description would benefit from indicating the result or delivery status, and the non-idempotent external action warrants clearer resend and failure semantics.
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 100%, including the company default and the pointer to list_companies, so the baseline score applies. The phrase 'given address' merely restates the email parameter's role and adds no semantics beyond the schema.
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 specifies the action ('E-mail'), resource ('a receipt'), and destination ('the given address'), making the basic operation clear and practically distinct from create_receipt and reverse_receipt. It does not explicitly state that the receipt must already exist or provide any sibling comparison.
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 wording implies using the tool to deliver an existing receipt to a recipient, but gives no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. For example, it does not explain when company selection is necessary or whether this should follow create_receipt.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.