Create a new invoice in BoondManager by providing the company ID, total, and issue date. Optionally set status, due date, paid date, or description.
Create a new invoice
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| paidAt | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| dueDate | No | ||
| issuedAt | Yes | ||
| companyId | Yes | ||
| description | 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new invoice' and does not mention side effects such as record persistence, validation rules, required permissions, default status behavior, or the shape/format of the created invoice response.
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 concise sentence with no filler, but at only five words it is under-specified for a 7-parameter create operation. It is efficient but lacks the structural detail needed to help an agent use it correctly.
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 create tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too incomplete. An agent receives no explanation of critical fields, enum semantics, behavioral effects, or expected response, making correct invocation largely guesswork.
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 lists no parameters. It does not explain the meaning of companyId, total, issuedAt, status, paidAt, dueDate, or description, nor does it mention which fields are required beyond what the schema already states.
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 operation ('Create') and the resource ('a new invoice') clearly, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_invoices_search, boond_invoices_get, and boond_invoices_update. Even though it is terse, the verb-resource pair is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as boond_invoices_update for modifying existing invoices or boond_quotations_create for quotes. No prerequisites, workflow context, or exclusions are provided; usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.