cs_pending_summaryRetrieve pending invoices for a specific month and year, filtered by issued (receivable) or received (payable), to review outstanding collections or payments.
Facturas pendientes de cobro (issued) o de pago (received) de un mes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mes | Yes | ||
| anio | Yes | ||
| tipo | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds domain semantics (pending collection/payment invoices for a month) but does not explain whether the result is an aggregate summary, a list, or what 'pending' precisely means, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted wording, front-loading the resource and scope. It is terse enough to be efficient, though the parenthetical enum mapping and missing verb make it slightly less structured than ideal.
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 simple read-only tool the description covers the domain and parameter intent, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the summary's return shape, an agent still lacks important information about what it will receive.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully maps tipo's enum values to business meanings (issued=collection, received=payment) and implies mes/anio scope, but it does not explicitly define the month/year format or clarify the summary granularity.
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 identifies the resource (pending invoices) and scope (a month) and maps issued/received to collection/payment, which is clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'summarize' or 'list' and does not distinguish itself from cs_list_invoices, leaving some ambiguity about whether it returns aggregates or invoice records.
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 implies usage for a monthly pending-invoice view via 'pendientes' and the tipo/month parameters, but never states when to choose it over cs_list_invoices or cs_list_periods. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.