Detects which accounting import format a file uses—A3, ContaPlus CSV, ContaPlus ASCII, or CSV—so you can send it to the correct conversion or validation flow.
Tell which accounting import format a file is (a3, contaplus_csv, contaplus_ascii, csv). Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| content_base64 | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of genuinely new behavioral information — that the call is free (no credit cost) — which matters given the pricing/credits_balance siblings. It does not disclose behavior on empty or malformed input, or whether content or content_base64 takes precedence.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the useful output enumeration first and the cost note last; nothing is wasted. The trailing 'Free.' fragment is slightly abrupt but carries real decision-relevant information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, with two optional, undocumented, empty-defaulted content parameters, the definition leaves an agent unsure which field to populate and what happens when detection fails.
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 0% and both parameters are undocumented, so the description must compensate. 'A file' only vaguely implies file content; it never explains the distinction between content and content_base64, nor that both default to empty strings and neither is required. This is a real gap for a two-input tool.
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?
Names a specific verb (detect) and resource (accounting import format) and enumerates the exact possible results (a3, contaplus_csv, contaplus_ascii, csv), which lets an agent distinguish it from the convert/validate siblings at a glance. No explicit sibling contrast is stated, so it stops short of 5.
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 word 'Free' implies this is a cheap pre-flight step before convert_journal, validate_journal or build_journal, and the pricing/credits_balance siblings give that context. However, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated explicitly, and there is no mention of what to do if detection is ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.