accounting_get_list_journal_entriesGetListJournalEntries pages through the journal register with filters — the review queue is filter{needs_review: true}. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| pageToken | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entries | No | ||
| totalCount | No | ||
| nextPageToken | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'pages through' (pagination) and that the review queue filter is `needs_review: true`, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose return format, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, and 'Read-only' merely repeats the annotation.
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 very brief and front-loaded with the main action. It wastes little space, though it redundantly starts with the function name 'GetListJournalEntries' and ends with 'Read-only' which duplicates the annotation. Still, it is efficient and readable.
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?
Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the core purpose, pagination, and a key filter scenario. It lacks details about other filters and required parameters, but the schema provides that structure. It is adequate for a listing tool with annotations.
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 low (25%) with only companyId described. The description does not explain pageSize, pageToken, or most filter fields. It gives one example related to the filter object (`needs_review: true`), but the key name differs from the schema's `needsReview`, adding confusion. Overall, parameter semantics are minimally compensated by the description.
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 a specific action: 'pages through the journal register' with filters, identifying the resource (journal entries) and operation (listing/paginating). It distinguishes from siblings like accounting_get_journal_entry_by_transaction and accounting_upsert_journal_entry by focusing on the list/register aspect.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any siblings or exclusions. The only hint is the review queue filter example, which is a use case, but not a comparative guideline.
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.