Fetch an incoming service act by document and organization IDs to view service receipt details.
Акт прихода услуг по id. Где взять ID: organizationId → organizations__get_organizations. Троттлинг MCP-сервера (не лимит iikoCloud): не чаще 10 запрос(ов) за 60 с — кэшируйте результат в диалоге.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds a concrete rate-limit warning and caching recommendation, which is valuable behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides extra operational detail.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the ID source and throttling note. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy. It could be slightly more compact, but it is well-structured and efficient.
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 simple get-by-id tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the main operational aspects: what it retrieves, where to get one required ID, and a rate-limit/caching hint. The missing piece is the source for documentId (likely from a list endpoint), but overall it is adequate for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description adds the source for organizationId (from organizations__get_organizations), which is helpful, but it does not explain where documentId comes from or its role. The schema's simple 'GUID' descriptions are minimal, so the description only partially bridges the gap.
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 'Акт прихода услуг по id' which clearly identifies the tool as retrieving an incoming services act by ID. It also provides a pointer for where to obtain the organizationId, adding useful context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_finance_incoming_services or get_finance_outgoing_service, though the name itself is fairly descriptive.
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?
The description gives clear usage context: it tells the agent where to get the organizationId (from organizations__get_organizations) and advises caching due to MCP-server throttling (10 requests per 60 seconds). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus a list alternative, but the prerequisite and rate-limit guidance are directly useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.