ultimo_comprobanteRetrieve the last authorized invoice number by ARCA for a specified receipt type and point of sale, enabling sequential billing in Argentine electronic invoicing.
Último número autorizado por ARCA para un tipo de comprobante y punto de venta (por defecto, el del perfil en producción o el primero activo).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | Yes | ||
| entorno | Yes | ||
| punto_venta | No | ||
| nota_credito | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: the number is obtained from ARCA, and an omitted point of sale defaults to the production profile's point of sale or the first active one. This default-selection behavior is not present in the annotations or schema.
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 one compact sentence with no filler or repetition. The main object is front-loaded, and the default-selection caveat is placed in a parenthetical where it does not distract. It is concise but slightly terse for a tool with four parameters.
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 simple read-only query, the description plus schema and annotations is mostly adequate: safety is covered, allowed inputs are enums, and the point-of-sale default is explained. However, there is no output schema and no guidance on the nota_credito parameter or the intended workflow, leaving some gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
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%, so the description should compensate, but it only alludes to 'tipo de comprobante' and 'punto de venta'. It does not explain the meaning of 'entorno' beyond indirectly mentioning production, and it never explains the nota_credito boolean. The schema provides allowed values, but parameter semantics remain under-specified.
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 clearly identifies the resource: the last ARCA-authorized voucher number for a given comprobante type and point of sale. This distinguishes it from listar_comprobantes and ver_comprobante, which return lists or individual documents. It loses one point because it lacks an explicit verb like 'obtener' or 'consultar' and the title/description are very close.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of listar_comprobantes, ver_comprobante, or before calling emitir_en_produccion. There are no exclusions, workflow cues, or alternative tool mentions. The intended usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.