billingo_pos_printGenerate a printable PDF receipt for any document, formatted for 58mm or 80mm POS thermal printers. Specify the document ID and paper width to get a ready-to-print receipt.
Returns a printable PDF receipt for a document, sized for a POS thermal printer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id. | |
| size | Yes | Thermal paper width in millimeters: 58 or 80. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output format (PDF receipt) and POS sizing intent, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling, authorization requirements, or document availability behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the output type, the target use, and the format in one line.
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-only tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema adequately cover what an agent needs: the document id, the size, and the PDF output. An explicit pointer to sibling document-retrieval tools would strengthen routing, but nothing critical is missing.
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 input schema already fully documents both parameters: id as 'Document id' and size as thermal paper width with 58/80 enumeration. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the POS sizing context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the deliverable: a printable PDF receipt for a document, sized for a POS thermal printer. This distinguishes it from sibling document tools like billingo_download_document by its receipt-specific POS purpose.
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 phrase 'sized for a POS thermal printer' gives a clear contextual signal for when this tool should be chosen over generic document download or public-URL tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.