Generate an inventory/stocktaking document for Money S3 by specifying issue date, warehouse, and document number, then submit it to the async import queue for processing.
Create an inventory/stocktaking document. Async import queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dateOfIssue | Yes | Date (DD.MM.YYYY) | |
| warehouseCode | No | Warehouse code | |
| documentNumber | No | ||
| definitionShortcut | No | XML transfer definition shortcut | _INV |
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. It does disclose a key trait beyond the schema: the operation is asynchronous and goes through an import queue. However, it does not explain implications such as how to confirm creation, whether the response is immediate, or what happens on failure.
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 very brief: one clear purpose sentence and one short behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the main action. 'Async import queue' is a fragment, but it is still efficient and earns its place.
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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what a caller receives, how to verify success of the async queue operation, or how this relates to listing/deleting inventory documents. An agent would need to guess at post-call behavior.
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 description adds no parameter-level information, but the input schema already documents dateOfIssue, warehouseCode, and definitionShortcut, covering 75% of parameters. The one gap, documentNumber, has no description and the tool description does not help clarify its meaning or format.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('inventory/stocktaking document'), and the synonym 'stocktaking' clarifies what an inventory document is. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like m3_create_stock_document or m3_create_stock_card, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Aside from the terse note 'Async import queue,' there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as m3_create_stock_document or m3_inventory_documents. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.