Kingdee MCP Server

by WaHaiLong

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

kingdee_workflow_approve

Approve or reject pending workflow documents in Kingdee Cloud Star ERP. Returns JSON with success, action, and bill_id.

Instructions

审批通过或驳回单据。

approve: 审核通过（待审核 → 已审核）
reject: 驳回（已审核 → 反审核回到待审核状态）
返回结构化结果，包含 success / next_action 字段

Returns: str: JSON，含 success / action / bill_id 字段

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_workflow_approve"
  }
}

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing state transitions for approve (待审核→已审核) and reject (已审核→反审核). Annotations show destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the reversible nature. No contradictions; the description provides behavioral context not in annotations.

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 concise, well-structured with a summary line, bullet points for actions, and a return note. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or missing information.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. It mentions the return JSON with key fields. Could include more detail on error handling or response codes, but sufficient for agent understanding.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (form_id, bill_id, action, opinion). The description adds contextual state transition info for action values and clarifies the return structure, slightly enhancing schema coverage.

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 approves or rejects documents, specifies the two actions (approve/reject) with state transitions, and mentions the return structure. It is distinct from sibling query and action tools like kingdee_submit_bills or kingdee_push_and_audit.

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?

The description implies the tool is for approving or rejecting workflow items but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other action tools like kingdee_submit_bills or kingdee_query_pending_approvals. No alternative guidance or exclusions are provided.

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

Deploy Server