Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cuéntica MCP

Cuéntica MCP

by dacmail
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_document

Destructive

Upload a document to the Cuéntica accounting inbox using base64-encoded data and filename for record management.

Instructions

⚠️ Sube documento al buzón. data en Base64. Confirmar con usuario.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "create_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
dataYes
dateNo
expense_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true. The description adds the need for user confirmation, which is a critical behavioral trait beyond the annotation, though it doesn't detail other implications like overwrite behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with three short phrases, front-loading the action and adding only necessary details. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description omits important context like file size limits, accepted formats, or linking to expenses. For 4 parameters with zero schema descriptions, this is insufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description clarifies that the 'data' parameter must be Base64-encoded, which is essential. However, it does not explain 'filename', 'date', or 'expense_id' parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Sube' (upload) and resource 'documento al buzón' (document to mailbox), differentiating it from other resource-focused create tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_customer or update_document. The instruction 'Confirmar con usuario' is a user directive, not an AI usage guideline.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools