estado_confirmacionCheck the status of an invoice draft confirmation to see if it's still pending with summary and token, or if it has been cancelled, expired, or already issued.
Solo para la tarjeta: si la confirmación sigue pendiente (con el resumen y un token para esta apertura), o si se canceló, venció o ya se emitió.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| borrador_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by enumerating the finite set of statuses (pending, cancelled, expired, issued), which complements the closed-world annotation. It does not contradict the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose the return format or explain the 'tarjeta' context, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.
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, which is appropriately sized. However, the sentence is convoluted, front-loading the ambiguous 'Solo para la tarjeta' before the actual status list, which reads as confusing rather than 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?
For a status-check tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves critical gaps: what 'la tarjeta' refers to, the meaning and format of borrador_id, and the return shape. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional context, especially given the cryptic domain terminology.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining borrador_id, yet it never mentions the parameter at all. The phrase 'un token para esta apertura' is oblique and does not clearly map to borrador_id. An agent has no way to understand what value to pass or how it relates to the confirmation status.
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 the tool reports the confirmation status by enumerating the possible outcomes (pending with summary and token, cancelled, expired, or already issued). This does distinguish it from the sibling 'estado_configuracion' (configuration status). However, 'Solo para la tarjeta' (only for the card) is ambiguous — it never clarifies what 'the card' refers to in this domain, and the run-on phrasing obscures the core purpose.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like confirmar_emision, cancelar_emision, or preparar_emision. The only hint is the opening 'Solo para la tarjeta,' which is a scope restriction but is unexplained and gives no actionable condition for selection, and no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.