clover-mcp

summarize_sales

Read-only

Generate a plain-language sales briefing for a date range, summarizing sales and top items into a short narrative.

Instructions

AI: plain-language sales briefing for a date window (default: today).

Gathers the sales summary + top items, then asks your client's model to write a short narrative. Read-only suggestion. Needs a sampling-capable client; if yours can't sample, returns the raw data with a note. Requires ORDERS_R/PAYMENTS_R.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "summarize_sales"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date_to`	No
`date_from`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only suggestion' and adds substantial context: the internal process (gathers data, then calls model), fallback to raw data with a note, and required permissions ORDERS_R/PAYMENTS_R. These details go well beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short, front-loaded paragraphs. The first sentence clearly states the tool's core purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds unique value: process, fallback, and permissions. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain returns. It covers process, fallback behavior, permissions, and date default. The only notable omission is date format, but overall it is complete for a moderately complex tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema has two optional date parameters with 0% description coverage. The description says 'date window (default: today)', which maps to date_from/date_to, but it does not specify the expected format or whether the range is inclusive. It provides basic meaning but leaves gaps.

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 states the tool produces a 'plain-language sales briefing' and explains it gathers 'sales summary + top items' then asks the client's model to write a narrative. This clearly distinguishes it from raw-data siblings like get_sales_summary and get_top_items.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The first line implies use when a plain-language briefing is needed, and the fallback note explains behavior if the client can't sample. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server