accounting_get_chart_of_accountsGetChartOfAccounts returns the company's chart of accounts (flat list with parent links; build the tree client-side). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| includeInactive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accounts | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only.' It adds valuable behavioral context by revealing the flat list structure with parent links and that tree construction is the client's responsibility. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing data shape and processing expectations, though it does not mention pagination or default filtering 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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a critical implementation detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it optimally concise.
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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It conveys the essential output shape (flat list with parent links) and the client-side tree construction need. However, it omits any mention of the includeInactive parameter's behavior, which feels like a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.
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 only 50% (companyId has a wrapper description, includeInactive has none), and the tool description does not explain either parameter. The boolean 'includeInactive' is particularly left ambiguous; the description offers no insight into its default or effect. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'returns the company's chart of accounts.' It also specifies the output format ('flat list with parent links') and instructs the caller to 'build the tree client-side,' distinguishing it from related tools like balance sheet or general ledger. The verb 'returns' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for retrieving a chart of accounts, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like account_get_list_accounts or accounting_get_general_ledger, nor does it state any exclusions or preferred scenarios. There is no 'use X instead' or 'when not to use' 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.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.