Creates a cashbook entry for receipts and payments using the Fatture in Cloud API v2 data schema. Use it to record incoming or outgoing transactions for a company.
Crea un movimento di prima nota (incassi e pagamenti). data segue lo schema dell'API v2 di Fatture in Cloud.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| company_id | No | Azienda su cui operare. Default: FIC_COMPANY_ID o l'unica azienda del token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not state required fields, whether entries post to any balance, idempotency, or what happens on validation failure; the only behavioral hint is that the payload mirrors the Fatture in Cloud API v2 schema, which defers understanding to external documentation the agent may not have.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The second sentence earns its place as a schema hint, though it shifts a large informational burden onto an external reference rather than spelling anything out.
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?
This is a write operation with a nested untyped object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail — and it supplies almost none. A caller would need the Fatture in Cloud v2 cashbook payload spec to use this tool correctly.
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 coverage is 50%, and the uncovered parameter is the critical one: 'data' is a free-form object with additionalProperties and no property documentation. The description only points at the external API v2 schema, adding no field-level meaning, so an agent cannot construct a valid payload from the definition alone.
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 and resource ('Crea un movimento di prima nota') and clarifies scope with the parenthetical 'incassi e pagamenti', which tells the agent this covers both receipts and payments. It is not explicitly differentiated from nearby siblings such as create_receipt or create_f24, which also create money-movement-like records, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over create_receipt, create_f24, or register_pending_received_documents, nor any prerequisites or preconditions. The agent must infer from the name alone when a prima nota entry is the right object to create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.