Formosa MCP

invoice_get_winning_numbers

Retrieve Taiwan uniform invoice winning numbers and prize claim periods; omit the period to get the latest draw results.

Instructions

查詢統一發票中獎號碼與領獎期間。Get Taiwan invoice winning numbers; omit period for the latest draw.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "invoice_get_winning_numbers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only public lookup and hints at return content (winning numbers and claim period), but says nothing about the response shape, number formats, or whether historical draws far back are available. For a simple query tool this is acceptable but thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter rule second; nothing is padded. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but adds accessibility rather than noise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally sketch the returned fields and the period format. It names the two main result elements, which partially covers the gap, but an agent still cannot predict the response structure or valid input syntax.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single optional 'period' parameter, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that omitting period returns the latest draw, but never specifies the expected format (e.g. '11307' vs '2025-05'), which is the main ambiguity for the only parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get Taiwan invoice winning numbers', and adds that the result covers the winning numbers plus the prize-claim period (領獎期間). It is clearly a lookup of lottery results, distinct from invoice_check and the stock/garbage/outage siblings. It does not explicitly name the neighbouring invoice tool, so differentiation is by resource rather than by routing language.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'omit period for the latest draw' gives a concrete usage rule for the common case, which is genuinely helpful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over invoice_check, nor on what a valid period looks like, so the agent must infer the relationship to siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server