Retrieve shipped units for a sales order or received units for a purchase order by document ID. Other document types are unsupported.
Get shipped/received units for a document (Holded API v2). salesorder → GET /sales-orders/{id}/shipped-items. purchaseorder → GET /purchase-orders/{id}/received-items. All other docTypes are not supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docType | Yes | Type of document | |
| documentId | Yes | Document ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the underlying API endpoints and the unsupported-docType failure mode, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about response shape, pagination, or auth requirements for a read tool, so meaningful gaps remain.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the per-docType endpoint mapping, then the hard exclusion. No filler or restated title.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the main invocation risk (unsupported docType) but never indicates what the returned 'units' look like, which an agent may need when deciding whether this tool answers their question.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it narrows an 11-value docType enum down to the only two values that actually work and explains that documentId is interpreted against a different endpoint per type.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get shipped/received units for a document') and immediately scopes it to two document types. The docType-to-endpoint mapping makes it unmistakable versus siblings like ship_items_by_line or ship_all_items.
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?
Explicitly declares the supported conditions (salesorder → shipped-items, purchaseorder → received-items) and an exclusion ('All other docTypes are not supported'). It does not name alternative siblings such as ship_items_by_line for the broader shipping case, but the when/when-not is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.