Suggest Portuguese tax categories for uncategorised Xero expenses. Returns category, VAT tier, deductibility, and VAT breakdown per transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Portuguese tax region | mainland |
| to_date | No | End date filter (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from_date | No | Start date filter (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| api_key_hash | Yes | Customer API key hash identifying Xero token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'suggest' clearly indicates a non-destructive, read-only operation, and the expected outputs (category, VAT tier, deductibility, VAT breakdown) are listed. It could be more explicit that no data is written to Xero, but the word 'suggest' strongly implies this.
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 followed by the return values. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what the tool returns (category, VAT tier, deductibility, per-transaction breakdown). It covers the purpose, scope (uncategorised expenses), and output sufficiently for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since all parameters are fully documented in the schema.
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 a specific verb+resource construction: 'Suggest Portuguese tax categories for uncategorised Xero expenses,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like apply_categories and calculate_vat. It also states the scope (uncategorised expenses) and the return payload.
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 phrase 'for uncategorised Xero expenses' provides clear context indicating this is for a pre-categorisation step, implicitly distinct from apply_categories. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with complementary pairs like categorise_expenses (suggest) and apply_categories (apply), reconcile_transactions (match) and confirm_reconciliation (apply). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_vat, draft_invoice, send_invoice), but 'health' deviates by being a plain noun, and there is a minor British/American spelling variation ('categorise' vs 'calculate').
9 tools is well-scoped for an accounting MCP, covering VAT calculation, categorization, reconciliation, invoicing, reporting, and health checks without redundancy or bloat.
Core workflows are well-covered, especially the propose/apply pairs for categorization and reconciliation. Minor gaps include lack of invoice read/update actions and no explicit transaction listing, but these are not critical given the server's focus.