Retrieve the last 50 e-Factura sync events with invoice ID, company CIF, timestamp, and sync status to audit recent ANAF invoice synchronization outcomes.
Retrieve the recent e-Factura sync activity log showing the last 50 synced invoices. Each entry shows the invoice ID, company CIF, sync timestamp, and status (success, failed, or skipped).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real value: the hard cap of 50 entries (implying no pagination) and the enumerated status values (success, failed, skipped). Missing is any statement about ordering or whether the log is scoped to the caller's organization.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The scope ('last 50 synced invoices') is front-loaded and the second sentence enumerates the return fields without restating the first.
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?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the four fields and the status enum. Minor gaps: ordering of entries and whether results are org-scoped.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The statement that it always returns the last 50 entries usefully explains why no filtering parameters exist.
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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('recent e-Factura sync activity log') with an explicit scope of the last 50 entries, plus the shape of each record. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as anaf_sync_status or efactura_messages_list, which an agent must infer from names alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is for inspecting what happened during ANAF e-Factura sync. There is no explicit 'use this when you need X, use anaf_sync_status instead when Y' and no stated prerequisites or failure conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.