Query register documents with VAT breakdown, payment status, and controlling variables to audit cash transactions and reconcile discrepancies.
Query cash desk (register) documents 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 is the sole source of behavior. It discloses that the tool returns cash desk documents and highlights VAT breakdown, payment status, and controlling variables. However, it does not mention pagination, result shape, filtering/ordering behavior, or any access/side-effect considerations, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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 with no filler. The verb and resource appear first, followed by the key output qualifiers.
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 query tool with no output schema, no annotations, and vague terms like 'controlling variables', the description is too thin. It does not explain pagination defaults, GraphQL filter/order syntax, return container, or how this tool relates to the many sibling query/create tools.
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%; order and where are described merely as GraphQL clauses, while skip and take have no description. The tool description does not explain these parameters or connect them to the listed fields, so it fails to compensate for the schema's sparse parameter documentation.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query cash desk (register) documents'. It further narrows the scope by naming the returned aspects (VAT breakdown, payment status, controlling variables), and the read-oriented wording distinguishes it from sibling create/delete cash-desk tools.
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 guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as m3_graphql, m3_bank_documents, or m3_create_cash_desk_document. The word 'Query' weakly implies read-only usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.