Match a bill to its purchase order and goods receipt to return matched, exception, or no_po status for accounts payable verification.
Match a bill against its PO and goods receipt. Returns matched, exception or no_po.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | Yes | Bill id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the three possible outcomes (matched, exception, no_po), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about side effects (does matching persist an exception record or trigger downstream workflow?), permission requirements, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 terse sentences that front-load the action and end with the outcome set; no filler or restated field names. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it never explains what drives each outcome, what an 'exception' constitutes, or whether a match mutates state. An agent could call it correctly but not predict its side effects.
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% for the single bill_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter contract and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, source, or identifier-type detail beyond what the schema states.
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 uses a specific verb ('Match') and names both the input resource (a bill) and what it is matched against (PO and goods receipt). No sibling tool (get_bill, create_bill, check_duplicates, etc.) performs matching, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.
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?
It states the action but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or sequencing relative to siblings like check_duplicates or recommend_approval. The closest thing to an alternative, check_duplicates, is never mentioned, and no conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.