Retrieve full invoice details by reference for the past 31 days, including total, line items with quantities and prices, customer, and payment method.
Detalle de una factura por su referencia (ej. A-15): total, líneas con cantidades y precios, cliente y cómo pagó. Busca en los últimos 31 días.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| factura | Yes | Referencia de la factura, ej. A-15 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable traits beyond the schema: the returned payload composition and a 31-day lookback window that limits results. It does not say what happens when the reference is outside that window, does not exist, or whether the call is read-only.
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 tight sentences with the return contents front-loaded and the 31-day constraint placed last as a caveat. The only waste is repeating the 'A-15' example already present in the schema.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return shape and flags the 31-day data window. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (invoice not found or older than 31 days), which an agent would need to know before calling.
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% and the single parameter is already documented with an example ('Referencia de la factura, ej. A-15'). The description restates the same example without adding format constraints, case sensitivity, or accepted reference patterns, so it adds essentially nothing 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?
States a specific resource (una factura) and lookup key (su referencia), and enumerates what is returned: total, líneas con cantidades y precios, cliente y cómo pagó. This clearly separates it from aggregate siblings like ventas_periodo or informe_ventas, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for looking up one known invoice by reference, and the 'últimos 31 días' note implicitly bounds when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. sibling guidance (e.g. use ventas_periodo for ranges) and no statement of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.