Retrieve an outgoing inventory invoice by document ID and organization ID. Access full invoice details for processing, review, or verification.
Расходная 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 the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds a concrete rate-limit constraint (max 10 requests/60s) and advises caching, which is useful operational behavior beyond the annotations. It does not disclose return shape or errors, but the main safety profile is covered by 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: purpose first, then ID sourcing, then throttling/caching. No filler; it is front-loaded and scannable.
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 by-id read tool with only a GUID-pair parameter, the description should at least point to the corresponding list tool for documentId and mention that the result is a single invoice. It only covers organizationId sourcing and throttling, so an agent may be unsure where documentId comes from.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only explains where to get organizationId ('organizationId → organizations__get_organizations'), but omits the documentId source and does not clarify that the schema expects a wrapper 'request' object containing both GUID fields. Most parameter meaning is left to the bare schema.
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 names the resource ('расходная накладная' / outgoing waybill) and states it is retrieved by id. It distinguishes it from sibling invoice get tools by the 'outgoing' qualifier, though the verb 'get' is only implicit in the noun phrase rather than explicitly stated.
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 tells the agent where to obtain organizationId (via organizations__get_organizations) and warns about the MCP-server throttle with a caching instruction. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list/get tools or state when to prefer this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.