Creates an F24 tax payment form from structured Fatture in Cloud API v2 data, enabling preparation of Italian tax payments.
Crea un modello F24. 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 behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the F24 is saved as a draft or submitted, what happens on invalid data, permissions, or idempotency. The only behavioral hint is that `data` must conform to the Fatture in Cloud v2 API schema, which is useful but far from sufficient for a write operation.
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 with the action stated first and the payload hint second; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps too terse given the complexity of the opaque `data` payload, but structurally sound.
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?
The tool takes a nested, schema-less object and has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the payload's minimum content, the create semantics, and the return value. Instead it defers entirely to an external API reference, leaving an agent without enough information to construct a valid call confidently.
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%: company_id is documented in the schema, while `data` is an unconstrained free-form object with no properties. The description compensates by pointing to the external Fatture in Cloud v2 API schema for the payload shape, which is genuinely additive information the schema cannot express, though it gives no version reference or field examples.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Crea un modello F24"), which distinguishes it from the read/update/delete F24 siblings by action. It stops short of naming those siblings or the object's scope, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 create an F24 versus calling update_f24 on an existing one, no preconditions (e.g. company selection, required identifiers), and no mention of what the tool does with the created form afterwards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.