Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool serves a distinct meta-operation: list_tools discovers available tools, describe_tool_input exposes a tool's input schema, execute_tool invokes a tool, and list_scopes reports allowed scopes. The boundaries are clear, with no overlapping responsibilities that would cause misselection.
All four tools use snake_case with a predictable verb_noun pattern (list_tools, list_scopes, execute_tool, describe_tool_input). The only minor variation is the three-word describe_tool_input, but it remains readable and consistent.
Four tools is an appropriate minimal surface for a meta-MCP server that dynamically discovers and executes Apideck tools. Each tool earns its place, and there is no redundancy.
The set covers the full meta-tool lifecycle: discovery (list_tools), schema inspection (describe_tool_input), execution (execute_tool), and permission/scope awareness (list_scopes). No obvious operation is missing for the stated purpose.
Return the JSON-Schema input contract for a tool by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact tool name to describe (e.g. "accounting-invoices-create"), as returned by list_tools. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the purpose itself; it does not mention error cases (e.g., unknown tool name) or the exact format of the returned schema. No contradiction with annotations.
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 stating the exact operation. No filler or repetition; every word contributes to the meaning.
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 one-parameter introspection tool with strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers its return value. However, it lacks any note about behavior when the tool name is invalid, which might be useful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive parameter entry for 'name' including an example and source ('as returned by list_tools'). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it relies on the schema, which is adequate.
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 verb 'Return' and a well-defined resource: 'the JSON-Schema input contract for a tool by name.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like execute_tool or list_tools.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings are listed but not compared, and there is no mention of prerequisites or typical workflows (e.g., 'use before calling execute_tool'). The implied use case is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Invoke a tool by name. input is validated against the target schema before dispatch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact tool name to invoke (e.g. "accounting-invoices-create"), as returned by list_tools. | |
| input | No | Arguments object validated before being forwarded to the target tool. Its shape matches that tool's input schema (fetch it with describe_tool_input). Omit for tools that take no arguments. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful trait: input is validated against the target schema before dispatch. However, it does not warn that this dispatcher can trigger destructive write operations in downstream tools (which sits awkwardly with destructiveHint=false) or how errors are surfaced.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the validation behavior following. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 meta-dispatch tool with a nested free-form input object and no output schema, the description omits what the caller gets back (raw result vs wrapped envelope) and how downstream failures are reported. The pre-dispatch validation note is helpful but the behavioral picture is incomplete.
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% and both parameters are well documented inline (exact tool name, arguments shape, omit for no-arg tools). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (Invoke) and resource (a tool by name), and the second sentence clarifies the dispatch semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from list_tools, describe_tool_input and list_scopes, which enumerate rather than execute.
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?
Implicitly the entry point for actually running a tool discovered via list_tools, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not name the alternative patterns (e.g. that discovery should precede execution). Usage is inferable only from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the list of allowed MCP scopes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the qualifier 'allowed,' implying scopes may be restricted, but provides no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.
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, front-loaded sentence: 'Return the list of allowed MCP scopes.' Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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, parameterless tool, the description sufficiently communicates the return value (a list of scopes). While it lacks details on output format or edge cases, the tool's triviality means this is adequate completeness.
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 has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning to explain. The description is not required to compensate, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4.
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 the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'list of allowed MCP scopes,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tools (which lists tools) and execute_tool (which executes tools).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Discover Apideck tools. Call with no args for domain index; filter with domain/search_terms/scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | Filter by mutation scope: "read" (no writes), "write" (creates/updates), or "destructive" (deletes/overwrites). Omit to include all scopes. | |
| domain | No | Restrict results to a single tool domain (e.g. "accounting", "hris"). Omit to get the cross-domain index. Use a key returned by a prior no-arg call. | |
| search_terms | No | Case-insensitive substring terms ANDed across a tool name/description (e.g. ["invoice","create"]). Omit to list everything in the domain. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral nuance of the no-args call and the filtering options, providing context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential usage instructions without any redundant words or fluff.
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 discovery tool with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers the main usage patterns (no-arg and filtered). It doesn't describe the return format, but the purpose and filtering behavior are sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, and the schema already explains each parameter in detail. The description merely restates parameter names without adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 starts with 'Discover Apideck tools,' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on discovery/listing rather than execution or input description, and the mention of filtering adds specificity.
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 gives explicit usage modes: call with no args for a domain index, or filter by domain/search_terms/scope. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that the agent can infer when to use this tool versus siblings like execute_tool or describe_tool_input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
execute_tool1 field changedInput schema / properties / input / descriptionPrevious value: -"Arguments object forwarded verbatim to the target tool. Its shape matches that tool's input schema (fetch it with describe_tool_input). Omit for tools that take no arguments."New value: +"Arguments object validated before being forwarded to the target tool. Its shape matches that tool's input schema (fetch it with describe_tool_input). Omit for tools that take no arguments."MCP server for Codat — companies, connections, invoices, bills and financial statements.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
An MCP server that provides an API to LLMs to manage their JumpCloud resources.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
