List purchase and sales VAT codes recognized by the sheet and identify the IVA return box each one fills.
The purchase and sales VAT codes the sheet understands, and which return boxes each one fills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes domain content but does not state that the tool is read-only, what the return structure looks like, or any auth/side-effect constraints.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. That is appropriately terse for a simple zero-parameter reference tool.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description identifies the subject matter and mapping content well enough to know the tool's data scope. It does not describe the return format, but for a simple static reference this is a minor 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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here.
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?
Names the specific resource (purchase and sales VAT codes) and the mapping it exposes (return boxes), so an agent can tell what data it returns. It does not explicitly contrast with vat_return, but the scope is still discernible.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus vat_return or other siblings; the agent must infer it is a reference lookup. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.