Retrieve bank payment and transfer documents with VAT breakdown, payment status, and controlling variables to enable financial review and reconciliation.
Query bank documents (payments, transfers) with VAT breakdown, payment status, controlling variables
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | GraphQL order clause | |
| where | No | GraphQL where filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Query' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the listed output attributes give some idea of what is returned. But it does not mention pagination behavior, filtering semantics, response shape, or any access considerations.
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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and key output dimensions with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaningful context.
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?
The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should provide more operational context. It leaves out how to use the GraphQL filter/order parameters, pagination defaults, and what the actual response structure looks like, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain skip/take pagination semantics or how to construct the GraphQL 'where' and 'order' clauses, so an agent has to infer from bare schema metadata.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Query' and identifies the resource as 'bank documents (payments, transfers)', clearly distinguishing this read tool from the sibling create/delete bank document tools. It also highlights distinctive output aspects (VAT breakdown, payment status, controlling variables).
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?
The description implies the tool is for querying bank documents, and the verb 'Query' contrasts with the create/delete siblings. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like m3_graphql or m3_cash_desk_documents, and it does not state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.