Search Morning accounting documents by type, status, client, or date range to find invoices and expenses. Use filters to locate records and track document status.
Find Morning documents. Open status alone does not prove unpaid debt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| toDate | No | ||
| clientId | No | ||
| fromDate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a cryptic domain caveat about status vs. unpaid debt, which gestures at how results should be interpreted but gives no actionable behavior (pagination, result limits, filter interactions, auth).
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?
It is short and front-loads the purpose sentence, which is good. The second sentence, however, is cryptic and does not obviously earn its place for selecting or invoking the tool, leaving the definition under-specified rather than concise.
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 6-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description omits filtering semantics, pagination, result scope, and draft-vs-finalized distinction. It is far too thin to let an agent call it correctly.
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?
Six parameters (page, type, status, toDate, fromDate, clientId) have 0% schema description coverage and the description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever. With the schema carrying no semantics and the description failing to compensate, an agent cannot know what values type/status expect or how the date range behaves.
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?
"Find Morning documents" gives a verb and a resource, so the basic operation is discernible. However, it does not scope which documents (issued vs. draft) and does nothing to separate it from siblings such as search_document_drafts or get_document. The second sentence describes a domain caveat, not the tool's purpose, so it adds no differentiation.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for draft vs. finalized documents. The only quasi-guidance, "Open status alone does not prove unpaid debt," is a data-interpretation remark, not an invocation condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.