sef_list_unit_measuresReturns SEF's accepted unit codes (e.g., H87 for piece, HUR for hour) to ensure Serbian e-invoice line items use valid measurement units.
Returns SEF's list of accepted unit codes (e.g. H87 piece, HUR hour, MON month).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is SEF's accepted-code set with sample values, but does not say whether the list is static or changes, or whether returned codes are localized or versioned.
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 front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and examples that earn their place by showing the code format. Nothing is redundant.
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 zero-parameter reference lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description says enough to call it correctly. A brief note on how the returned codes link to invoice fields would make it complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call requires no input.
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 and resource ('Returns SEF's list of accepted unit codes') and reinforces it with concrete examples (H87 piece, HUR hour, MON month), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like sef_draft_invoice, though the resource is distinctive enough to be unambiguous.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup to call before supplying a unit code to an invoice tool. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no note that this list is the authoritative source for valid codes, and no mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.