Generates a Markdown and CSV financial report for a date range from a read-only inventory and invoicing database, with optional row limit (default 200).
Informe Markdown + CSV(;) de un periodo (max_n filas, default 200)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_n | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose useful behavior: output formats (Markdown and semicolon-delimited CSV) and a row cap via max_n with default 200. It still omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, and whether it aggregates or streams 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 that front-loads output formats and the period scope. It avoids filler and repetition, though its extreme brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It provides output-format and row-limit hints, but leaves the required date semantics, report contents, and safety profile undefined for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.
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 should compensate. It explains max_n as the row limit with default 200, but it says nothing about the required fecha_desde and fecha_hasta parameters beyond 'de un periodo', leaving date format and expected values ambiguous for two required inputs.
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 that the tool produces a Markdown + CSV(;) financial report for a period, which is a clear verb ('Informe' implies report generation) and resource. It does not, however, differentiate the report from siblings like resumen_iva or saldos_cliente, so an agent cannot tell exactly what financial content it returns.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'de un periodo', leaving the agent to guess when this report is preferred over resumen_iva, facturas_venta, or saldos_cliente.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.