fynsight: MCP server for DATEV

note-anomaly-case

Idempotent

Write the reporting note (Reporting-Vermerk) of an open anomaly case: e.g. "one-off consulting invoice". The month report shows explanations, not case notes: once the case is decided in the app, the note becomes material from which the explanation draft of the position is written. It changes ONLY this note, never the case status — deciding a case (resolved/dismissed) happens in the app. A case that already has a note is rejected (CASE_NOTE_EXISTS, existing_note returned) unless replace is true; only pass replace after the user asked to overwrite. Only possible before the figures are approved (run status up to awaiting_approval); from approved on, and for decided cases, the call is rejected. The internal processing note is never touched.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "case_id": "<case_id>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "note-anomaly-case"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	The explanation (1–8000 chars)
`case_id`	Yes	UUID of the anomaly case
`replace`	No	Required true to overwrite an existing note; without it the call is rejected and the existing text stays.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the rejection path CASE_NOTE_EXISTS with existing_note returned, the run-status precondition, and the guarantee that case status and the internal processing note are never touched. That is exactly the side-effect and failure-mode context an agent needs before mutating.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its scope, then preconditions, then failure behavior. It is dense and long-ish for one tool, but nearly every clause carries a constraint or exclusion an agent could otherwise get wrong, so there is little waste.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, error semantics with a returned field, overwrite behavior, and the exact mutation boundary. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `replace` must only be passed after the user explicitly asks to overwrite, and the note is framed as the material from which the position's explanation draft is later written. It does not restate the character limits already in the schema, which is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a precise verb and resource: writes the reporting note (Reporting-Vermerk) of an open anomaly case, with a concrete example of the note content. It explicitly distinguishes itself from case-status changes ("deciding a case ... happens in the app") and from the internal processing note, which none of the sibling tools cover.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (only while run status is up to awaiting_approval and the case is undecided) and when-not (approved onward and decided cases are rejected). It also names the correct place for the excluded action (the app) and gates `replace` on the user having asked to overwrite.

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

All fynsight: MCP server for DATEV tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?