Creates a new supplier in Fatture in Cloud from data that follows the v2 API schema, with optional company selection for scoped operations.
Crea un fornitore. 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says whether creation is idempotent, whether duplicate VAT numbers are rejected, what permissions or company scoping are required, or what the response contains after a successful create.
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 action and immediately followed by the payload note. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 mutation tool taking a free-form nested `data` object with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is well short of complete. An agent cannot determine the payload shape, success behavior, or error conditions from this description alone.
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?
The schema documents company_id but leaves `data` as a bare object with additionalProperties, so the description's only contribution is a pointer to the external "API v2 di Fatture in Cloud" schema. That pointer helps locate the shape but does not explain required fields, nested structures, or validation rules inline, which is a real gap for a nested-object payload.
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?
"Crea un fornitore" states a specific verb plus resource, which is unambiguous and matches the tool name. It does not distinguish this from sibling mutations such as update_supplier or create_client, but the create semantic is clear enough to act on.
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 use this versus update_supplier (e.g., create-vs-upsert behavior), no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do if the supplier already exists. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.