Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Find or Create Supplier

resolve_supplier

Resolves a supplier by registry code, VAT number, IBAN, or name, and optionally creates a new client when no match is found.

Instructions

Resolve supplier by registry code, VAT number, IBAN, or name; optionally create a client.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ibanNoBank account (IBAN)
nameNoSupplier name from invoice
vat_noNoVAT number (KMKR)
countryNoCountry code for auto-create (default EST)
reg_codeNoRegistry code (registrikood)
auto_createNoCreate client if not found (default false)
is_physical_entityNoNatural person (default false = legal entity)
confirmed_supplier_nameNoSet only after the user approved this exact name. Must equal `name` exactly (after trimming). Needed to create a new supplier whose name the business registry did not confirm; the client is created under this name.
foreign_identity_attestedNoOperator accountant-attestation that a FOREIGN (country != EST) legal entity's identity has been verified. Required to auto-create a foreign legal entity. Must be an explicit operator input — never set it from the extracted/OCR invoice fields.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.32.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmed_supplier_name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set only after the user approved this exact name. Must equal `name` exactly (after trimming). Needed to create a new supplier whose name the business registry did not confirm; the client is created under this name.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. Addedv0.25.3
  4. Removedv0.25.2
  5. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write nature is partly covered; the description adds the genuinely non-obvious nuance that creation is conditional/optional rather than always. It says nothing about permission requirements, what happens on no-match without auto_create (error vs empty result vs candidate list), or the attestation gate for foreign entities, all of which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence naming the operation and its keys, with no filler. It loses a point only because the closing clause 'optionally create a client' switches terminology and leaves the create condition vague rather than crisp.

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?

For a nine-parameter, zero-required lookup-or-create tool with no output schema, the description covers the lookup path but is silent on resolution semantics (match precedence, ambiguity handling, failure mode) and on the create path already annotated in the schema. The rich schema descriptions carry most of the load, so the definition is usable but not complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already well documented, including the strict rules for confirmed_supplier_name and foreign_identity_attested. The description only restates four of the nine lookup keys and adds no combination rules (e.g., which identifiers are authoritative when several are passed), so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (supplier) and enumerates the four lookup keys, so the core operation is unambiguous. The trailing 'optionally create a client' introduces terminology drift from 'supplier' to 'client' that slightly muddies what record type is being created, but the title and body still distinguish it from one-shot siblings like find_client_by_code.

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 on when to prefer this over find_client_by_code, search_client, or list_clients, nor on when auto_create should be enabled versus left false. The conditions under which confirmed_supplier_name or foreign_identity_attested must be supplied are left entirely to the schema and operator knowledge.

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