Execute any InvoicePDFs API operation by name with schema-defined arguments, enabling AI agents to complete document, compliance, and customer tasks found through operation search.
Run any operation returned by find_operation, by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arguments | No | The arguments for that operation, matching the inputSchema find_operation returned. | |
| operation | Yes | An operation name returned by find_operation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It never warns that the dispatched operation may mutate or destroy data, says nothing about permissions, side effects, error behavior, or what the response contains. The only behavioral insight is the implicit dependency on find_operation.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the source of the operation identifier. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 generic executor with a nested free-form arguments object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. An agent cannot tell from it whether the call is safe, what errors to expect, or how results are shaped, and would have to infer behavior from the discovered operation itself.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the free-form 'arguments' object that must match find_operation's inputSchema. The description's 'by name' adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specific verb (run) and resource (an operation returned by find_operation), which is precise enough for a generic dispatcher. The name alone is ambiguous, and the description resolves it by tying execution to the discovery tool. It only stops short of 5 because it gives no hint about what kinds of operations exist in this domain.
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 phrase 'returned by find_operation' embeds a usage precondition: the agent must discover an operation name first. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus calling a domain-specific sibling like document_create or recurring_cancel directly, and no exclusions or failure-mode advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.