Retrieve return order data from Luceed ERP by UID or B2B key, and query status changes or received quantities for return orders.
Return orders: Return orders (NaloziPovrata). Actions: uid, b2b, izmjena_status, zaprimljene_kolicine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b2b | No | B2B key | |
| uid | No | Return order UID | |
| action | Yes | Which endpoint action to call | |
| timestamp | No | Date/timestamp |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether this is read-only or mutating, despite 'izmjena_status' strongly implying a write operation, and says nothing about permissions, side effects, or what each action returns. The action list is a hint at behavior, not a disclosure of it.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but the opening clause is pure duplication of name and title, and the action list duplicates the enum. A small amount of text is wasted, though the overall length is appropriate.
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 multi-action dispatcher with four actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least explain what each action returns or requires. Nothing beyond the enum is given, leaving the agent unable to call the tool correctly without guessing from enum names.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats the action enum values already documented in the schema and adds no format, dependency, or conditional-meaning information (e.g., that 'uid' is required for the 'b2b' action).
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 restates the tool name ('Return orders: Return orders (NaloziPovrata)') and then lists the action enum values, which are already in the schema. There is no verb describing what the tool actually does with return orders (fetch? create? modify status?), and no differentiation from siblings such as luceed_nalozi_prodaje, luceed_narudzbe, or luceed_vpracuni.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling order-related tools. The agent must infer from the action names alone which endpoint to select.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.