Query ERP invoice records by ID and normalize responses into canonical fields for downstream processing; read-only with automatic retries on transient failures.
从 ERP 查询发票并归一化为规范字段(只读,含重试)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and includes retry behavior. However, it does not explain authentication requirements, failure semantics, retry limits, or what 'normalization' does to the returned data.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler and front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical adds useful behavioral context, though it compresses several ideas (read-only, retry) without elaboration.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the returned canonical fields, error behavior, or how invoice_id is interpreted.
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?
There is one required parameter, invoice_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the expected invoice ID format, source system conventions, or lookup behavior. It leaves the only parameter entirely undocumented beyond its name.
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?
The description states a specific action and resource: querying invoices from ERP and normalizing them into canonical fields. Siblings are unrelated tools, so explicit sibling differentiation is less critical. It could be slightly clearer about whether it returns one invoice or many, since the name is singular but 'query' is broad.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only clue is '从 ERP' (from ERP), which implies data origin but not invocation conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.