Kingdee MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kingdee_query_asset_depreciation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve asset depreciation records by period or asset to analyze monthly depreciation, accumulated depreciation, and net value changes.

Instructions

查询资产折旧记录（FA_DepreciationBill）。折旧记录是固定资产计提折旧的明细，反映每月折旧费用、累计折旧、净值变化。常用 filter_string：

指定期间: "FYear=2024 and FPeriod=3"
指定资产: "FAssetId.FNumber='FA001'" 推荐 field_keys： FID,FYear,FPeriod,FAssetId.FNumber,FAssetId.FName,FDepreciateDeptId.FName,FDepreciateAmount,FOriginalAmount,FTotalDepreciate,FNetAmount

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_query_asset_depreciation"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about the nature of depreciation records but not additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or specific authorization needs.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, explanation, and examples. Concise but the second sentence could be merged with the first for even tighter structure.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a query tool. It covers core usage with examples, though additional details on ordering or pagination could be beneficial.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Though the input schema already describes parameters well (high coverage), the description adds value with concrete filter_string examples and recommended field_keys specific to this tool, helping the agent craft effective queries.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states it queries asset depreciation records (FA_DepreciationBill) and explains what they represent. The tool name and sibling context (e.g., query_asset_card, query_asset_scrape) make it distinct, though explicit differentiation is missing.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides useful filter_string and field_keys examples, indicating when to use the tool, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling query tools for other asset types.

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

Deploy Server