Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

post_document

Post a document to generate register movements in 1C:Enterprise ERP.

Instructions

Провести документ. Формирует движения по регистрам.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "full_name": "<full_name>",
      "guid": "<guid>"
    },
    "name": "post_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidYesUUID документа
full_nameYesТип документа, например: Документ.РеализацияТоваровУслуг

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by stating it generates register movements, but it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether the document becomes uneditable), required permissions, or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two brief sentences convey the core purpose and effect with no extraneous words. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and outcome but omits behavioral scope, error handling, and usage constraints. For a document posting tool, this is functional but lacks completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers both parameters (full_name and guid) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'post' and the resource 'document', and mentions the generated effect 'movements in registers'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling 'unpost_document' which reverses the operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'validate_document' or prerequisites such as document state. The description does not mention exclusions or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools