Populate multiple 1C:Enterprise form fields at once, using the same field-setting logic as single fields. Optionally search by title or create missing inputs.
Set multiple ordinary form fields using the same logic as set_field_value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | default-18 | |
| search_by_title | No | ||
| create_if_missing | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Set' (suggesting a mutating operation) and defers to set_field_value without explaining what that logic actually is, what side effects occur, or how the operation affects the form state.
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 wasted words. However, it leans heavily on the reference to set_field_value and leaves out necessary details, so it is efficient but not fully self-contained.
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?
This tool has four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain how to format 'values', what 'ordinary form fields' excludes, or what the boolean parameters do in practice. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this definition alone.
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% and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. In particular, the required 'values' string parameter is unexplained: it is not clear whether it expects JSON, delimited pairs, or some other format. The boolean flags are self-explanatory by name but lack behavioral context.
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 a clear verb and resource: 'Set multiple ordinary form fields'. It also references the sibling tool set_field_value, indicating this is the plural/batch counterpart.Core semantics are clear, though 'ordinary' is not defined and the exact field targeting mechanism is left implicit.
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 word 'multiple' implies this should be used instead of repeatedly calling set_field_value, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative conditions or exclusions are stated beyond the implied batch use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.