Fetch purchase journal entries for a date range (YYYY-MM-DD), one entry per expense; requires accounting permission.
Journal des achats sur une période (dates AAAA-MM-JJ) : une écriture par dépense. Nécessite la permission comptabilité.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fin | Yes | ||
| debut | Yes | ||
| dossier | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / dossierAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Dossier"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add two useful facts — a permission requirement and the one-entry-per-expense output granularity. It still omits response format, pagination, and any failure behavior, which matters for an unannotated tool.
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?
A single compact sentence; period, date format, granularity, and permission each earn their place, and the core resource is front-loaded.
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?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description should fill more gaps. It covers permission and granularity but says nothing about the undocumented 'dossier' parameter or the shape of returned entries, leaving an agent partially equipped.
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. It supplies the date format (AAAA-MM-JJ) for the required debut/fin parameters, adding real meaning, but leaves the optional 'dossier' parameter entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (purchase journal) with the scope (over a period) and granularity (one entry per expense). It is clearly distinguishable from the sales-journal siblings by name, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 indicates the required input (a period) and the accounting permission prerequisite, which implies when it applies. However, it never explains when to choose this over journal_achats_csv or journal_ventes, so routing stays inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.