compute_receivables_agingCalculate receivables aging by client from unpaid sales invoices. Set an as-of date to get a cutoff snapshot for collections and financial reporting.
Compute receivables aging by client from unpaid sale invoices. Pass as_of_date for a specific cutoff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of_date | No | Aging date (YYYY-MM-DD, default today) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.25.3v0.25.2v0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context on the data basis (only unpaid sale invoices, grouped by client), but says nothing about the returned structure (aging buckets, totals) for a report tool with no output schema.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the core computation front-loaded and the optional parameter addressed second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 read-only computed report with strong annotations and a fully documented single parameter, the description is nearly sufficient, but it never hints at what an aging report returns (buckets, per-client totals), which is the main remaining gap given no output schema.
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% and the schema already documents as_of_date as YYYY-MM-DD with a default of today. The description's sentence merely restates the cutoff concept without adding format or default behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 (compute) plus resource (receivables aging), the grouping dimension (by client), and the source data (unpaid sale invoices). This clearly separates it from the sibling compute_payables_aging and from compute_client_debt without needing either schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the report type but never stated: no condition for choosing this over compute_client_debt or compute_payables_aging, and no note that only unpaid sale invoices are in scope by design. Adequate but leaves the selection decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.