Manually triggers an async e-Factura sync for companies with valid ANAF tokens, validating token availability and plan rate limits before fetching new invoices from ANAF SPV.
Manually trigger e-Factura synchronization for all companies with valid ANAF tokens. Validates token availability and subscription plan rate limits, then dispatches an async sync job to fetch new invoices from ANAF SPV.
| 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 non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the validation gates (token availability, subscription rate limits) and that the job is dispatched asynchronously to fetch invoices — behavior an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.
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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the internal behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.
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 output schema, the description should indicate what the caller gets back. It says an async job is dispatched, which implies an immediate acknowledgement rather than results, but it does not point the agent to anaf_sync_status or anaf_sync_log for follow-up, leaving the post-call flow slightly incomplete.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and fully covered. The description does add the meaningful semantic that the operation is unscoped — it applies to all companies with valid tokens — which is exactly the kind of information a parameterless tool needs.
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 (trigger) and resource (e-Factura/ANAF SPV sync) with an explicit scope: 'for all companies with valid ANAF tokens'. This scope implicitly separates it from per-client siblings like invoices_sync_client or companies_toggle_sync, but it never names an alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
'Manually trigger' signals this is the on-demand path versus scheduled sync, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over anaf_sync_status, spv_sync_prepare, or invoices_sync_client, and no stated preconditions or exclusions beyond 'valid ANAF tokens'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.