Validates a single contractor invoice within its batch context so duplicate invoices and credit notes are detected before an approve, dispute, or hold verdict.
Check one invoice. It runs in its batch so duplicates and credit notes are seen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | ||
| invoice | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully states that the check runs in its batch so duplicates and credit notes are seen, but it omits whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what permissions are required, what side effects occur, and what happens on failure.
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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence names the target and the second adds behavioral context. There is no filler, though the second sentence could be clearer about what 'its batch' means.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the operation, the folder parameter, and the expected result. It provides only a minimal batch-context clue and leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It only implies that 'invoice' identifies one invoice and says nothing about the optional 'folder' parameter, invoice format, or how batch membership is determined. This leaves both parameters substantially under-specified.
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 gives a verb and resource ('Check one invoice'), so the basic target is clear. However, 'check' is vague and the second sentence only adds batch context rather than explaining what checking actually does or returns. It partially distinguishes this from check_all by specifying 'one invoice', but not clearly enough to rise above a minimum-viable purpose statement.
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?
The description does not say when to use this tool instead of siblings like read_invoice, list_invoices, or check_all. The batch note implies that duplicate and credit-note awareness is relevant, but it does not state that as an explicit usage condition or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.