Retrieve incoming inventory invoice details by document ID and organization ID to access invoice information.
Приходная накладная 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. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the MCP-server throttling limit (10 requests per 60 seconds) and advising dialog-level caching, which the annotations do not provide. This is useful, non-contradictory context.
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?
Three short sentences each earn their place: purpose is front-loaded, ID sourcing follows, and the rate-limit/cache note is a compact operational warning. No filler or repetition.
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 get-by-ID tool with two required parameters, the description explains only organizationId provenance and omits how documentId is obtained or what its identifier semantics are. It also fails to point to the natural sibling list_inventory_incoming_invoices for discovering document IDs. The rate-limit note is helpful but does not fill these gaps.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only explains how to source organizationId and leaves documentId implicit despite it being a required field. The request-wrapper structure and additional_properties are also unaddressed. Partial value at best.
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 identifies the resource ('Приходная накладная') and the access mode ('по id'), which clearly distinguishes it as an incoming-invoice-by-ID lookup from the many sibling get/list invoice tools. It lacks an explicit verb and does not spell out how it differs from sibling get_inventory_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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 a useful prerequisite directive for obtaining organizationId via organizations__get_organizations, but it does not say when to choose this tool over list_inventory_incoming_invoices or over the similar get_inventory_returned_invoice/get_inventory_outgoing_invoice tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.