Fetch a production document by its ID for a specified organization, enabling access to inventory production details for invoice processing.
Акт производства 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?
The description adds a concrete rate limit specific to the MCP server and recommends caching, which is not present in the annotations. Since readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already cover the safety profile, this additional operational detail earns credit. It does not describe response format, but that is less critical with a read-only annotation.
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 extremely concise, consisting of three short phrases: purpose, ID source, and throttling/caching. It front-loads the purpose and adds only operational guidance without any fluff 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?
The description leaves the documentId source implicit—it never states that IDs come from list_inventory_production_documents. There is no output schema, so the return format is unknown. It covers organizationId sourcing and throttling well, but for a get-by-id tool the missing pointer to the list tool is a meaningful gap.
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% at the parameter level. The description mentions organizationId and its source endpoint, but does not explain documentId or the nested request structure. The schema does contain GUID descriptions for the inner properties, but the signal indicates these are not enough; the description should compensate and only partially does.
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 specific resource (production act) and the lookup by ID, which distinguishes it from list_inventory_production_documents and other get_* siblings. It lacks an explicit verb in the description, but the tool name provides 'get', so the purpose is clear enough.
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?
It provides a clear precondition for obtaining organizationId via organizations__get_organizations and states the throttling limit (10 requests per 60s) with a caching suggestion. It does not explicitly contrast with list tools or mention when not to use, but the 'by id' context and ID source guidance give clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.