Returns SPV inbox archive counts for a company, including total, unread, PDFs pending download, and category and severity breakdowns with their lists.
Counts for the SPV inbox archive of a company: total, unread, PDFs still to download, breakdown by category and by severity, plus the category and severity lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.28Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered; the description earns credit by disclosing what is actually counted (total, unread, PDFs still to download) and that both aggregate breakdowns and the raw category/severity lists are returned. That is return-shape context the annotations do not supply.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that begins with the verb and resource, then enumerates the returned metrics with zero filler. Every clause contributes information about the output.
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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so by enumerating the counters and lists. The only notable absence is any note on scoping default (company from env vs. explicit ID), which the schema covers only partially, and no indication of what an empty archive returns.
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?
Only one parameter, companyId, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the STORNO_COMPANY_ID env-var override. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.
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 names a specific verb (counts) and a precise resource (the SPV inbox archive of a company) and enumerates the metrics returned, so an agent knows this is the aggregate/stats view rather than a listing. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like spv_documents_list, but the noun 'counts' plus the metric enumeration makes the distinction inferable.
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?
There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no named alternative; the usage is only implied by the resource and by the existence of spv_documents_list in the sibling set. An agent can infer this is the dashboard-style summary endpoint, but must reason about it rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.