Imports new issued and received invoice PDFs (ISDOC or Alza) into bookkeeping records, then flags remaining documents for expense or manual invoice processing.
Načte nové PDF z Vydaných faktur (ISDOC) a Přijatých faktur (ISDOC, jinak Alza) do evidence.
Zbylé doklady hned zpracuj: list_import_issues → přečti PDF → add_expense / add_manual_invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is an import/write operation ('načte ... do evidence') and that it only pulls new documents, which hints at incremental behavior, and it explains that unprocessed items surface through list_import_issues. It says nothing about what happens on duplicates, failed ISDOC parsing, permissions, or whether re-running is safe, which matters for a mutating sync with zero annotation coverage.
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 short blocks: the sync action first, then the follow-up procedure. Nothing is redundant. The second part reads as an imperative instruction to the agent rather than descriptive documentation, which is efficient but slightly atypical in tone.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters the surface is small. What remains under-specified is the substance of the sync itself: what counts as 'new', what happens to documents that fail to parse, and whether side-effect records (expenses vs. invoices) are created automatically or only via the listed follow-up tools.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema. The baseline for a parameterless tool 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: it fetches new PDFs from issued (ISDOC) and received (ISDOC/Alza) invoices into the ledger. That clearly separates it from siblings like list_invoices or get_invoice, which only read existing records. The phrase 'do evidence' (into the records) is slightly vague about what exactly gets created, which keeps this from a 5.
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?
It gives an explicit follow-up workflow for leftover documents: list_import_issues, then read the PDF, then add_expense or add_manual_invoice. That routes the agent to the correct siblings once the sync runs. It does not state when to skip the sync or how it relates to list_invoices/get_invoice for already-synced documents, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.