Tripletex MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds that 'A comment is required,' which provides useful behavioral context about mandatory input. However, it doesn't elaborate on what rejection entails (e.g., status changes, notifications, reversibility) or any other behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 with just two sentences that communicate the core action and a key requirement. Every word serves a purpose, and it's front-loaded with the primary function. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant 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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. It lacks details on what rejection means in practice, potential side effects, or error conditions. Given the annotations cover destructiveness and schema covers parameters adequately, the description meets minimum viability but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds that 'A comment is required,' reinforcing the schema's required constraint but not providing additional semantic context about parameter usage, format expectations, or business rules beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the action ('Reject') and resource ('supplier invoice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reject_supplier_invoices' (plural) or contrast with 'approve_supplier_invoice', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific singular rejection tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reject_supplier_invoices' (plural) or 'approve_supplier_invoice'. It mentions a comment requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There's no indication of appropriate scenarios or constraints for rejection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.