sevdesk_get_bookkeeping_system_versionReturn whether the account runs sevdesk bookkeeping 1.0 or 2.0 (2.0 uses taxRule instead of taxType on invoices). Also a cheap way to confirm the API token works. sevdesk: GET /Tools/bookkeepingSystemVersion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the call is cheap/side-effect free and can double as an API-token check, which is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent cannot get from 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?
Two tight sentences plus the raw endpoint reference, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: the version meaning, the 2.0 taxRule difference, and the token-check use case.
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 and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does it — it explains exactly what comes back (1.0 vs 2.0) and why that matters. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, and none is needed.
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 and resource (get the bookkeeping system version) and immediately explains what the return value means: whether the account runs 1.0 or 2.0, with 2.0 using taxRule instead of taxType. That semantic distinction lets an agent understand the tool's purpose without any sibling comparison, which is fine since no sibling overlaps this resource.
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?
Provides clear usage context: use it to determine which invoice tax model applies, and as a cheap token-validation probe. It doesn't state explicit exclusions, but no sibling tool competes for this resource, so there is no alternative to route away from; the missing piece is only a 'when not to bother' note.
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.