Kingdee MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kingdee_query_material_cost

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve material cost data including standard cost, latest cost, and average cost for specific materials or cost organizations in Kingdee ERP.

Instructions

查询物料成本库（BD_MaterialCost）。

返回物料的标准成本、最新成本、平均成本等信息。

常用 filter_string：

指定物料: "FMaterialId.FNumber='MAT001'"
指定成本组织: "FCostOrgId.FNumber='100'"

推荐 field_keys： FMaterialId.FNumber,FMaterialId.FName,FUnitId.FName,FStdCost,FLatestCost,FAvgCost

Returns: str: JSON 格式的物料成本列表

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_material_cost"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of return format (JSON list) is helpful but not essential. It adds database name but lacks details on authorization or rate limits, which is acceptable given the strong annotation profile.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is brief, uses bullet points for examples, and clearly separates sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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 detailed parameter schema, the description covers the essential query logic, return type, and usage patterns. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only query tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% per context, so the description bears the burden. It adds value by providing concrete filter_string and field_keys examples, but does not explain form_id, order_string, start_row, or limit. This partial coverage justifies a 3.

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 queries a specific database (BD_MaterialCost) and returns standard, latest, and average costs. The verb '查询' combined with the specific resource '物料成本库' makes the purpose distinct from sibling query tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit filter string examples and recommended field keys, guiding usage. However, it does not contrast with similar tools like kingdee_query_finished_product_cost or mention when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Deploy Server