Fetch paginated order documents from Money S3 accounting system. Use skip, take, and a GraphQL where filter to retrieve specific records.
Query order documents (objednávkové doklady) with pagination
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'Query' and 'with pagination'. It implies a read operation but does not state return format, implicit ordering, default scoping, or error behavior, and 'graphql filter' semantics are left entirely to the schema rather than explained.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; 'Query order documents (objednávkové doklady) with pagination' gets straight to the point and the parenthetical adds useful precision. The brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification, but as prose it is efficient.
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?
Given there are no annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It fails to explain the meaning of an 'order document' in the M3 domain, what the GraphQL where filter accepts, what the paginated response looks like, or how this relates to invoice documents.
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 33% (only 'where' is described). skip and take rely on self-evident names and numeric defaults, which is weak documentation. The description adds only 'with pagination', which reinforces the skip/take intent but does not explain syntax, defaults, or how 'where' integrates with the pagination parameters.
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?
Uses a specific verb 'Query' and resource 'order documents' with a Czech gloss (objednávkové doklady) that sharpens the meaning. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like m3_issued_invoices, m3_received_invoices, or the generic m3_graphql, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the description alone.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes m3_graphql, m3_issued_invoices, and m3_received_invoices, which could plausibly overlap, but the description offers no selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.