Exports all suppliers as SAGA-compatible accounting XML and returns a base64-encoded file ready for import into SAGA.
Export all suppliers in SAGA accounting XML format. Returns base64-encoded XML file compatible with SAGA import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides configured default) |
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 and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value on top: it returns the file base64-encoded inside the response and is scoped to ALL suppliers with SAGA import compatibility, which tells the agent it gets a blob rather than a path. It stops short of size limits or failure behavior when no company is configured.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and format, then the return shape. Nothing is wasted or restated from the title.
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 single-parameter read-only export with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: what is exported, the format, and the encoding of the result. Minor gap is the absence of anything about payload size or the 'all suppliers, no filtering' caveat being stated more explicitly.
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 optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents companyId including the override semantics. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.
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 and resource (export suppliers) plus the target format (SAGA accounting XML), which cleanly separates it from suppliers_export_csv and from the invoices_/clients_ SAGA variants. An agent can pick the right sibling from this sentence 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 implied: the tool is for producing a SAGA-importable file of suppliers. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of the CSV alternative or of prerequisites such as a configured company or completed supplier data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.