get_receiptsRetrieve receipts from Wint, newest first, and filter by company, date range, or limit to review bookkeeping expenses.
Receipts (kvitton) in Wint, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| company | No | Company id or name; may be omitted with one company | |
| date_to | No | Created on or before, YYYY-MM-DD | |
| date_from | No | Created on or after, YYYY-MM-DD |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint. The description adds the useful ordering detail 'newest first', which is not in annotations, but says nothing about pagination, how the limit interacts with that ordering, or session/auth requirements.
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?
The description is a single fragment with no filler and puts the ordering constraint up front. It is economical but also under-specified rather than fully structured, lacking a verb and any usage context.
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?
Structured data is rich: an output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and most parameters are documented. The main remaining gap is sibling differentiation and scope, but the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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 75%, with company, date_from, and date_to documented in the schema; only limit lacks a schema description but has clear default/min/max constraints. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 states the resource ('Receipts (kvitton)') and an ordering rule ('newest first'), which implies a list operation. However, it uses no verb and does not distinguish this tool from the singular sibling get_receipt or from get_supplier_invoices.
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 when-to-use guidance, no named alternative such as get_receipt for a single receipt, and no prerequisites such as needing connect_wint. The agent must infer selection from the plural name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.