list_responsibility_centersFind departments, projects, or other reporting groups—called responsibility centers in Tokenbooks—and get the type key and center name needed to assign one to an accounting entry line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Filter by responsibility center name | |
| portfolioRef | Yes | Portfolio exact name or slug | |
| workspaceRef | Yes | Workspace exact name or slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful domain context by defining 'responsibility centers' and identifying the expected output fields, but it does not describe list-shaped behavior or optional search filtering beyond the schema. No contradiction with the 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, front-loaded sentence that defines the domain term, identifies the resource, specifies the output fields, and states the downstream purpose. It does not restate annotations or schema details, so every component 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 simple filtered-list tool with no output schema, this is complete: the agent learns what a responsibility center is, what values are produced, and why they matter. Required parameters and optional search semantics are covered by the schema, and the read-only/idempotent safety profile is covered by annotations.
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 parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds context around 'center name' but no syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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?
The description states a clear verb ('Find...') and resource ('departments, projects, or other reporting groups—called responsibility centers in Tokenbooks', and names the concrete output fields ('type key and center name') needed for the downstream task. This distinguishes it from generic list_* siblings by connecting the tool to assigning a responsibility center to an accounting entry line.
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 explicitly states the intended use case: retrieving the values 'needed to assign one to an accounting entry line.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the 'when-not-to-use guidance' required for a 5. The when-to-use context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool.
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.