generar_pdfRegenerate a saved invoice's PDF with the 'Comprobantes en línea' design, without contacting ARCA. Provide the invoice file to produce the updated PDF.
Regenera el PDF de un comprobante guardado, con el diseño de "Comprobantes en línea". No toca ARCA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| archivo | Yes | ||
| entorno | No | prod |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already supply idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful external boundary—'No toca ARCA'—which is not derivable from annotations and tells the agent this operation has no tax-authority side effects. It doesn't describe the output or overwrite behavior, but the annotation safety profile lowers the burden.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with 'No toca ARCA' as a high-value one-line caveat. No filler or repetition of schema titles.
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 two-parameter tool with idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the core purpose and side-effect boundary are clear. But with no output schema, the description doesn't say what the tool returns, and the unexplained 'archivo' parameter means an agent still has to guess a key part of the call.
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 0% and the description never explains 'archivo' or 'entorno'. 'Archivo' is especially ambiguous (file path? comprobante ID?), and while the enum gives controlled values for 'entorno', its effect on the operation is unspecified. The phrase 'de un comprobante guardado' gives only a loose hint about the required parameter.
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 opens with the specific action 'Regenera' and the object 'PDF de un comprobante guardado', and names the exact design ('Comprobantes en línea'). The closing 'No toca ARCA' separates it from ARCA-focused sibling tools, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool is for.
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?
It gives clear context: regenerate a PDF for an already-saved comprobante, without touching ARCA, so the agent can infer it is for PDF re-generation rather than emission, cancellation, or ARCA setup. It does not name a sibling alternative or list explicit when-not conditions, which keeps it a point below the strongest definitions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.