ver_perfilRetrieve the AFIP profile with points of sale, VAT condition, default client, and date formatting rules to set up Argentine electronic invoices.
Devuelve perfil.json: nombre, puntos de venta de producción, condición frente al IVA, cliente por defecto, formato y reglas de fechas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the specific content of the return (fields), which is useful for an agent. It does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or error conditions, but given the simple read operation and existing annotations, this is adequate.
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?
A single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It lists all the returned fields without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse quickly.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the sole source of return information. It covers all the relevant fields (including date rules) so an agent knows exactly what to expect. For a parameterless, read-only tool, this is complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description correctly implies no arguments are needed and does not introduce confusion. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description maintains that.
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 verb 'Devuelve' (returns) and the specific resource 'perfil.json', and enumerates the exact fields returned (nombre, puntos de venta, condición IVA, cliente, formato, reglas de fechas). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'guardar_perfil', which is the write counterpart.
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 purpose is immediately clear from the name and description—it retrieves the profile. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with the alternative 'guardar_perfil'. The context is unambiguous enough that no further guidance is necessary, but explicit routing would be ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.