Retrieve internal accounting documents with VAT breakdown, payment status, and controlling variables to locate and review financial records efficiently.
Query internal documents with VAT breakdown, payment status, controlling variables
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | GraphQL order clause | |
| where | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states that the tool queries and alludes to certain fields, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, filter syntax, or whether these inner-document attributes are always returned.
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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded. It wastes no words, but the final phrase is a compressed list that may be jargon-heavy.
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 four generic parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the where/order syntax, the meaning of 'controlling variables', or how the VAT breakdown and payment-status features are accessed, so an agent may struggle to call it correctly beyond a default unfiltered query.
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 description coverage is only 25%, and the description does not compensate: skip, take, and especially where are left without meaning. The mention of VAT breakdown, payment status, and controlling variables is not mapped to any parameter or syntax, so an agent cannot infer how to filter.
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 names a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('internal documents'), which distinguishes it from sibling write tools like m3_create_internal_document and m3_delete_internal_document. The appended features (VAT breakdown, payment status, controlling variables) add some specificity, though it is unclear whether those are filter fields or returned data.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Query': the tool is for retrieving internal documents, not creating or deleting them. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the generic m3_graphql or other document query tools, and no mention of exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.