Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_ap_vendor

Create an AP vendor in Rocketmatter by providing vendor fields as JSON.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] Create an AP vendor. Fails loudly.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fields_json": "<fields_json>"
    },
    "name": "create_ap_vendor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fields_jsonYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description only says 'Fails loudly', which indicates error behavior but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return values. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (14 words) and front-loaded with the version note. While concise, it omits critical information, making it insufficient for effective use.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having only one parameter and an output schema, the description provides almost no context. No information about input format, output, or behavioral specifics. Completely inadequate for a create tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'fields_json' (type string) has no description in the schema or the tool description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the agent gets no guidance on what JSON structure to provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create an AP vendor', which is a specific verb+resource. It also includes a version note '[Not in LCS /v1]' to clarify scope, and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ap_bill and create_ap_payment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to sibling tools like update_ap_vendor or list_ap_vendors.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools