Retrieve the current invoice number counter to track the next invoice number in Fiken.
Retrieves the current invoice number counter
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "fiken_get_invoice_counter"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming the tool is safe. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as the format of the returned counter or whether it increments automatically. Since annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action. It contains no superfluous words and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., integer), which could aid the agent in understanding return value usage. Given the tool's simplicity, 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, so the input schema fully covers parameter definition. The description adds no additional meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 4 is justified.
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 tool retrieves the current invoice number counter, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate this counter from similar sibling tools like fiken_get_credit_note_counter or fiken_get_offer_counter, which have identical descriptions.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for using the invoice counter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.