get_sales_pointsRetrieves available sales points for AFIP/ARCA electronic invoicing to help select the correct point of sale when generating invoices.
Obtiene los puntos de venta disponibles para facturación electrónica. En testing siempre devuelve error ya que no existen puntos de venta configurados (se usa punto de venta 1 por defecto).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: in testing it always errors because no sales points are configured, and point of sale 1 is used by default. That error-mode disclosure is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the testing caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the notable failure mode. It doesn't describe the shape of the returned sales points, which would be the only remaining 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, environment-scoped call.
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 and resource ('Obtiene los puntos de venta disponibles para facturación electrónica'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_voucher_types, though the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives; usage is only implied (fetch sales points before invoicing). The testing caveat is a useful operational hint but is not a selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.