Retrieve chart of account groups for a company, including sections such as Sundry Debtors, Sundry Creditors, Bank Accounts, and Direct Incomes.
Get list of chart of account groups (sections like Sundry Debtors, Sundry Creditors, Bank Accounts, Direct Incomes, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get list' implies a read-only query, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, filtering, or whether all groups are returned at once. This is partially transparent but incomplete.
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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and includes useful examples. No redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter read-only list tool, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks explicit parameter clarification, usage guidance, and any output-shape information, leaving some room for ambiguity.
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 the description never mentions company_id or its role. The parameter is self-explanatory and required, so an agent can likely infer it, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Get list') and resource ('chart of account groups'), and the examples (Sundry Debtors, Bank Accounts) make the object concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough to be understood.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_ledgers or get_ledger_balance. No conditions, exclusions, or recommended contexts are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.