myob_list_bank_accountsMYOB: Bank accounts and credit cards you can record payments in or out of. Returns the accounts MYOB offers in the Bank account field when you record a payment, with the account code to pass as bank_account. Use it so a payment is never recorded into a guessed account. Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app.
| 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/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a Cotlet API key with access to this app is required and explains the returned account code is meant to be passed as bank_account, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not cover pagination or rate limits.
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 front-loaded with purpose and packed into four short sentences with little waste. The first sentence is slightly noun-heavy rather than verb-first, but overall it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 explains the key returned value (account code for bank_account) and the auth prerequisite, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It could still mention whether the list is paginated or what other fields are returned, but the core information is present.
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 no parameters (0 required, empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of the account code to pass as bank_account refers to output usage in other tools, not an input parameter for this tool, so it does not add input semantics but is not misleading.
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 states a specific resource ('bank accounts and credit cards') and verb ('Returns the accounts'), and scopes it to accounts usable when recording payments. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource is distinct enough for an agent to identify it among MYOB 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?
It tells the agent to use this tool so a payment is never recorded into a guessed account, which establishes the when: before recording a payment to retrieve the correct bank_account code. It does not name when not to use it or any alternative tool, but the context is clear.
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.