Retrieve outstanding receivables with VAT, payment status, and maturity dates. Filter and sort by controlling variables to track money owed to you.
Query receivables (amounts owed to you) with VAT, payment status, maturity dates, controlling vars
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination defaults, filtering behavior, error cases, or the shape of the response. The phrase 'controlling vars' is too vague to inform the agent about ordering, filtering, or paging behavior.
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 concise sentence with the primary verb front-loaded and no filler. It earns its place by stating the resource and key related data, but the final phrase 'controlling vars' is vague jargon that slightly weakens the otherwise compact structure.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, this description is too thin to support correct invocation. It does not explain how to construct the 'where' or 'order' clauses, what results look like, how pagination works, or when this query is preferable to sibling query tools like m3_liabilities or m3_received_invoices.
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% (only 'order' has a description), so the description must compensate by explaining how to use the parameters. It does not: 'where' and 'order' are left unexplained, and 'controlling vars' does not map clearly to skip/take/order/where. The mention of VAT, payment status, and maturity dates hints at filterable fields but does not tell the agent how to express those filters.
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 uses a clear verb ('Query') and resource ('receivables'), and adds a helpful parenthetical ('amounts owed to you') that distinguishes receivables from liabilities at a glance. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast its scope with m3_liabilities or m3_received_invoices, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings such as m3_liabilities, m3_received_invoices, m3_create_receivable, or m3_delete_receivable. The description only states that it queries receivables, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.