list_locked_periodsList the business's locked periods, newest first. A locked period freezes the books up to its end date: later changes to documents dated inside it wait as pending instead of moving the reported figures. Each period has its dates, reason, status, and how many changes wait as pending (added, edited, removed); the documents behind them are on the locked-periods page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering, the freeze semantics (changes inside a period become pending rather than altering reported figures), and the returned fields including pending-change counts. It omits any pagination or result-size behavior.
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?
Front-loaded with the action and ordering before the conceptual explanation, and every sentence carries information (domain definition plus returned fields). It runs three sentences, which is on the edge of verbose for a no-argument list tool, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by enumerating the fields (dates, reason, status, pending counts) and pointing to where the underlying documents live. Coverage is good, though the exact response shape is left implicit.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing to disambiguate and the description correctly makes no parameter claims.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the business's locked periods') plus the ordering ('newest first'), and defines what a locked period is. It clearly identifies a unique resource among the many list_* siblings, so an agent can pick it out without opening a 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?
Usage is implied: the description explains the domain concept of a locked period, from which an agent can infer relevance, but it never states when to use this versus alternatives or any preconditions. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.