Create a contractor record with INN, KPP, OGRN, address, and contact details; check for an existing counterparty by INN first to avoid duplicates.
Создать контрагента. Перед созданием проверьте elba_find_contractor по ИНН, чтобы не завести дубль.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inn | No | ||
| kpp | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| ogrn | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| short_name | No | ||
| contact_name | No | ||
| contact_email | No | ||
| contact_phone | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a persistent write but says nothing about permissions, whether a duplicate INN is rejected server-side, irreversibility, or required fields beyond 'name'.
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 short sentences with the action first and the safety check second. Nothing is wasted and it is front-loaded.
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 an unannotated mutation tool with nine mostly undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits required-field expectations, uniqueness behavior, and the success response. It covers only the dedup workflow.
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?
Nine parameters with 0% schema description coverage; the description only hints that INN identifies the contractor for dedup purposes. Name, KPP, OGRN, address, and the three contact fields are never explained, so the coverage gap is not compensated.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource ('Создать контрагента'), which clearly distinguishes it from elba_find_contractor and elba_get_contractor. It does not explain what a contractor record contains or how it relates to the bill/act tools, so it stops short of 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?
Gives an explicit prerequisite: run elba_find_contractor by INN first to avoid duplicates, and names the sibling. No guidance on when not to create, or what to do when a match is found (update vs. abort).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.