Retrieve Rentvine chart of accounts to get account IDs, numbers, names, categories, and active status for creating bill charges.
List the chart of accounts from Rentvine (live data). Returns account ID, number, name, category, and active status. Useful for identifying accountIDs when creating bill charges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'live data' and by listing the exact fields returned (account ID, number, name, category, active status), which goes beyond a bare 'list accounts' statement. It could mention pagination or limits, but for a simple list tool this is solid coverage.
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 compact sentences, no filler, with the primary action and scope in the first sentence and return-value plus use-case context in the second. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the data source, the returned fields, and a concrete downstream use-case. Without an output schema, the explicit field list compensates well, though a note about ordering or data volume would make it fully complete.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool starts at baselinescore 4.
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 specific verb and resource ('List the chart of accounts from Rentvine (live data)'), enumerates the returned fields, and distinguishes it from sibling list tools that target other entities. This is immediately actionable and unambiguous.
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 description clearly identifies a contextual use case: 'Useful for identifying accountIDs when creating bill charges.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the intended usage is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.