smartaccounts_list_vat_ratesVAT codes: vatPc code, percentage, descriptions, whether active for sales or purchases, accounts. Use vatPc in client and invoice rows. (settings/vatpcs:get). Not paged. The vendor limit is 60 requests per minute and 1000 per 24 hours; every call here is one request.
| 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 only supply readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses that results are not paged, gives concrete rate limits (60/min, 1000/24h), and notes each call counts as one request — all operationally relevant and beyond the annotation. It stops short of describing error behavior or response size.
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?
Compact and free of filler, with rate-limit and pagination notes packed into short clauses. It front-loads the returned field enumeration rather than the purpose statement, which is slightly suboptimal, but the title already establishes purpose so no meaning is lost.
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 usefully compensates by listing the fields a caller will receive and stating the non-paged/rate-limit behavior. For a simple zero-arg list tool this is complete enough, though it could note the response envelope shape.
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 the baseline is 4 with nothing for the description to disambiguate. The field enumeration in the description applies to output, not inputs, and is not penalized here.
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 name and title state the verb+resource (list VAT rates) clearly, and the description confirms by enumerating the returned fields (vatPc code, percentage, descriptions, active-for-sales/purchases, accounts). It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling overlaps in domain, so disambiguation is effectively unnecessary.
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?
"Use vatPc in client and invoice rows" is a genuine usage hint that tells the agent where the returned codes are consumed. However there is no stated condition for when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions — usage is implied rather than directed.
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.