Kingdee MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kingdee_push_production_pick

Push production orders to generate production pick material slips automatically, with configurable conversion rules and draft-on-fail fallback.

Instructions

从生产订单下推生成生产领料单（PRD_PickMtrl）。

Returns: str: JSON，含 success / target_bill_nos / next_action

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "kingdee_push_production_pick"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return format (JSON with success/target_bill_nos/next_action). However, it does not elaborate on error handling, side effects, or the draft_on_fail parameter's effect beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one sentence plus return note) and front-loads the purpose. It contains no unnecessary words, but it omits important details, making it slightly under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral details beyond the basic purpose. The return format is mentioned but not fully explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain any parameters. The input schema has three properties (bill_nos, rule_id, draft_on_fail) with some descriptions in Chinese, but context indicates schema_description_coverage is 0%, meaning the tool description should compensate. It fails to add meaning, e.g., it does not clarify that 'bill_nos' refers to production order numbers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: '从生产订单下推生成生产领料单' (push from production orders to generate production pick materials). It specifies the verb (generate/push) and resource (production pick material list), and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'kingdee_push_production_stock_in' or 'kingdee_push_stock_transfer'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., other push tools). It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server