Generate a financial report: P&L, Balance Sheet, Cash Flow (indirect method from balance sheet deltas), or VAT Summary with Portuguese SAF-T filing hints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_date | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today) | |
| from_date | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to 1st of current month) | |
| report_type | Yes | Report type to generate | |
| 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 full burden. It does add useful behavioral context (indirect method for cash flow, SAF-T hints for VAT), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, or any side effects, leaving gaps.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs in the specific report types and key details without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a solid job of conveying essential use cases. It could be more complete by mentioning the output format or data source (Xero), but the schema and description together are sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
All parameters are already described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that 'cash_flow' uses the indirect method from balance sheet deltas and that 'vat_summary' includes Portuguese SAF-T filing hints, which aids parameter selection.
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 'Generate' and names the exact resource 'financial report', then enumerates the concrete report types (P&L, Balance Sheet, Cash Flow, VAT Summary). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_vat or draft_invoice.
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?
Listing the report types implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (e.g., when a P&L is needed). However, there is no explicit exclusion or pointer to alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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.