create_deadlineCreate a tax or filing deadline by specifying type and due date. Set optional period dates and description to track obligations.
Create a new tax or filing deadline
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Deadline type (e.g., vat_return, corporation_tax, confirmation_statement) | |
| due_date | Yes | Due date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| period_end | No | Period end date | |
| description | No | Description | |
| period_start | No | Period start date |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, side effects, response behavior), providing no value beyond the structured annotation.
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 sentence with no filler words. The description is appropriately minimal and front-loaded, containing only the essential action.
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 simple create operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention what the tool returns after creation or any constraints (e.g., uniqueness), but given the low complexity this is a minor gap.
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 schema documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, staying at the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('tax or filing deadline'), which is specific enough. It distinguishes the action from listing deadlines (get_deadlines) but doesn't explicitly name the alternative or scope the deadline types beyond 'tax or filing'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other deadline-related tools like get_deadlines. It does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.