get_voucherRetrieve a specific accounting voucher, including its debit and credit rows, by series and number, with an optional financial year.
One voucher with its debit/credit rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | ||
| series | Yes | ||
| financial_year | No |
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 operation as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description is not responsible for the safety profile. It adds useful context by stating the return includes debit/credit rows, but it does not describe not-found behavior, permissions, or any other behavioral detail.
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 a single fragment with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is so terse that it lacks structure and sufficient informational payload, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 read tool with three parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining parameter usage and return behavior. It only hints at the return content and leaves parameter identification and tool selection entirely unexplained.
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% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (series, number, financial_year). An agent gets no guidance on how to identify the voucher beyond the raw schema types.
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 a specific resource ('one voucher') and its content ('debit/credit rows'), distinguishing it implicitly from sibling list operations like list_vouchers. However, it does not use a full verb and does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus list_vouchers or other retrieval tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.