Retrieve a vehicle by UUID with its open expiry items, counts, and next expiry date for invoicing or e-Factura workflows.
One vehicle with its open expiry items, counts and nextExpiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Vehicle UUID | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.48Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the return shape (open expiry items, counts, nextExpiry), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about whether missing vehicles error or return null.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the result content. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the minimum is met, and the note about open expiry items partially compensates for the absent output schema. It still omits error behavior and the relationship of `counts`/`nextExpiry` to the returned payload.
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 uuid and companyId parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case.
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 fragment "One vehicle with its open expiry items" implies fetching a single vehicle record, and the name vehicles_get reinforces this, so it is distinguishable from vehicles_list. However, it never states a verb ("retrieve/get") or mentions that the vehicle is identified by uuid, leaving the purpose only implied rather than declared.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus vehicles_list or expiries_get/expiries_list. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-record counterpart to the list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.