Retrieve an internal transfer document by its ID to view or verify inventory movements between warehouses.
Документ внутреннего перемещения 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, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing MCP-server throttling (10 requests per 60 seconds) and recommending caching in the dialog. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent plan its calls. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two short sentences with no unnecessary filler. It front-loads the purpose, then provides ID-sourcing and throttling guidance efficiently. It could be slightly better organized, but it earns high marks for brevity and directness.
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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the organizationId source and rate limiting, but omits how to obtain documentId (likely via a list call) and what the response contains. Given the low schema coverage, these omissions leave an agent without full calling context. The throttling guidance is a positive but does not complete the picture.
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 addresses organizationId by pointing to organizations__get_organizations. documentId is not explained at all beyond 'by id', and additional_properties is ignored. The schema itself has basic GUID descriptions, but the description does not add sufficient meaning for the required parameters.
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 'Документ внутреннего перемещения по id' clearly indicates a document retrieval by ID, with the tool name confirming the 'get' action. It distinguishes the resource (internal transfer) from sibling getters for incoming invoices, outgoing invoices, and writeoffs, so an agent can identify the target. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 only guidance provided is where to obtain organizationId via organizations__get_organizations. There is no instruction on when to use this tool versus the sibling list_inventory_internal_transfers, nor any mention of prerequisites for documentId. The description does not state that this is for fetching a single document after listing, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.