cs_create_providerCreates a new supplier in Contasimple; search existing entities first with cs_search_entities to avoid duplicates and ensure write access is enabled.
Crea un proveedor nuevo. Busca antes con cs_search_entities para no duplicarlo. Requiere escritura activada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nif | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| ciudad | No | ||
| nombre | Yes | Razón social | |
| telefono | No | ||
| direccion | No | ||
| provincia | No | ||
| codigoPostal | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation only declares readOnlyHint=false, so the description does add value with "Requiere escritura activada", a real precondition an agent must satisfy before calling. However, it says nothing about what happens on a duplicate NIF, whether the call fails or merges, or what a successful creation returns — relevant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Three short sentences: action, dedup precaution, precondition — each carries distinct information and nothing is redundant. Front-loading the core action is exactly right.
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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description is too thin: it never enumerates the required fields, key formats, or success/error behavior. Sibling routing and the write precondition are covered, but the input contract is left almost entirely unexplained.
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 only 13% (just 'nombre' documented as 'Razón social'), so the description is expected to compensate and does not: it mentions no fields, formats, or whether 'nif' must be unique/valid. The agent must infer the required identity fields (nombre, nif) and the meaning of the six optional address/contact parameters entirely from terse property names.
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?
"Crea un proveedor nuevo" states a specific verb (create) and resource (provider), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like cs_search_entities or cs_create_received_invoice. It stops short of indicating what data the provider record holds, but the action itself is unmistakable.
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?
It explicitly names the alternative workflow — search first with cs_search_entities to avoid duplicates — and states a precondition (write access must be enabled). What it lacks is guidance on what to do when a near-match is found (abort vs. proceed) or when the write flag is off.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.