Retrieve sales invoices for a date range with optional client filter and row limit, including the exact total for the period. Useful for financial reporting and sales analysis.
Facturas en un rango de fechas (max_n filas, default 200) + total_periodo exacto
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_n | No | ||
| cliente | No | ||
| fecha_desde | Yes | ||
| fecha_hasta | 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 disclosure burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the schema: the row list is capped at max_n (default 200) while total_periodo stays exact, so truncation does not corrupt the total. It says nothing about permissions, date format expectations, or what happens when the range spans many invoices.
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 telegraphic fragment with no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (date range, row cap, exact total) are front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than padded, which is a completeness problem more than a conciseness one.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description is the only source of information, yet it omits the cliente filter, date format, and any note on what each returned row contains. For a four-parameter financial query tool this leaves an agent guessing before invocation.
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 must compensate and only partially does: it covers the date range and gives max_n's default, but the 'cliente' parameter is never mentioned and no date format is specified for fecha_desde/fecha_hasta, leaving two of four parameters ambiguous.
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 resource (facturas de venta) and scope (a date range) are stated concretely, plus the notable fact that it also returns an exact period total, so an agent can tell this is a filtered list-plus-aggregate call. There is no explicit verb and nothing that distinguishes it from siblings like resumen_iva or cuadre_factura.
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 never says when to choose this tool over the twelve siblings, nor any prerequisite such as whether cliente filtering is optional or when the returned total should be trusted over resumen_iva. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the date-range phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.