Generate the next due invoice for a specified server by providing its ID and confirmation. Automates billing invoice creation for Hostkey cloud resources.
Создать следующий инвойс для сервера (whmcs/generate_due_invoice).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID сервера | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to run the operation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is expected. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action—no mention of side effects, irreversibility, authorization requirements, or the openWorldHint implication that external billing systems are affected.
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. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity verges on under-specification rather than being a model of efficiency.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and an ambiguous term ('next'), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'next invoice' means operationally, what the result will be, or what the agent should expect or verify after calling it.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for id and confirm. The tool description adds no extra meaning to these parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither compensates nor improves on the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('create') and resource ('invoice for the server'), which distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like get_invoice or get_server_invoices. However, the term 'next' is ambiguous and the description does not clarify whether it means the next due invoice, the next period, or the next in sequence, keeping it from 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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_addfunds_invoice or get_invoice. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between billing-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.