Marks an invoice as paid using its invoice ID, with an optional payment amount for partial payments; leave amount blank to settle the full balance.
Marque une facture payée (permission payments:write). facture_id =
numéro de la facture dans le compte. montant (texte,
ex. « 500.00 ») pour un paiement partiel ; vide = solde le total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dossier | No | ||
| montant | No | ||
| facture_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / dossierAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Dossier"
+}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the required permission (payments:write) and the partial-vs-full payment semantics, but says nothing about reversibility, side effects, or what the operation returns.
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 tight, front-loaded paragraph with no filler: action, permission, then per-parameter clarification. Every clause carries information.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the permission and the two most important parameters but omits any account-scoping explanation for `dossier` and any statement of effect or return. Adequate but with clear 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it partly does: it defines facture_id as the invoice number within the account and explains montant's text format (e.g. « 500.00 ») and its partial-payment meaning. The `dossier` parameter is left completely undocumented, leaving a real gap.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource action ('Marque une facture payée'), which is immediately distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like factures/encaissements. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as factures_impayees, but the mutation intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is an implicit usage condition baked into the parameters: a non-empty montant means a partial payment, an empty one settles the full balance. However, no when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or prerequisites beyond the permission string is offered, leaving the agent to infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.