Tripletex MCP Server

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a destructive operation. The description adds that it handles 'multiple invoices at once' (batch behavior) and requires a comment, which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by a key requirement. Every word adds value with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the batch nature and comment requirement but lacks details on outcomes (e.g., what happens after rejection), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds that 'A comment is required,' reinforcing the schema's required field, but doesn't provide additional semantic context (e.g., comment format or invoice ID specifics). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 invoices'), and specifies it handles 'multiple' invoices at once. It distinguishes from the sibling 'reject_supplier_invoice' (singular) by indicating batch processing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other rejection-related tools beyond this scope.

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 implies usage for rejecting invoices with a required comment, but doesn't specify when to use this vs. the singular 'reject_supplier_invoice' or other invoice-related tools. No explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat implied.

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