Kingdee MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kingdee_query_material_cost_usage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query production material cost usage by production order or material. Retrieve consumed quantity, cost price, and total cost in JSON format.

Instructions

查询生产材料耗用成本（CB_MaterialCostQuery）。

常用 filter_string：

指定生产订单: "FMoBillNo='MO000001'"
指定物料: "FMaterialId.FNumber='MAT001'"

推荐 field_keys： FMoBillNo,FMaterialId.FNumber,FMaterialId.FName,FConsumeQty,FCostPrice,FCostAmt

Returns: str: JSON 格式的材料耗用成本列表

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_usage"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the return format (JSON string) and form ID, but does not contradict annotations. This provides slight additional context beyond structured fields.

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 efficiently structured with the purpose first, followed by examples and return type. It is relatively concise, though the examples could be slightly more compact.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers essential usage (form ID, examples, return format) and an output schema likely exists. However, it lacks usage context relative to siblings and does not mention pagination or limitations, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

Despite the input schema having descriptions for parameters, the description adds concrete filter string examples and recommended field keys, which go beyond generic schema descriptions. This significantly aids correct parameter usage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool queries production material consumption cost and provides the specific form ID CB_MaterialCostQuery. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like kingdee_query_material_cost or kingdee_query_material_target_cost, which is a minor gap.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides filter examples and recommended fields but does not explain selection criteria among similar cost query tools.

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

Deploy Server