list_financial_yearsRetrieves all financial years (räkenskapsår) with IDs and date ranges, so you can use the correct ID for SIE and voucher calls.
All financial years (räkenskapsår) with id and date range. The id is what SIE and voucher calls take.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the payload (id plus date range) and the cross-tool dependency on the id, though it says nothing about auth needs or ordering.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no filler. The payload contents come first and the downstream-dependency note second, which is the right front-loading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by naming the id and date range fields. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing to mistranslate and the description correctly omits parameter talk.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the resource precisely (all financial years, with the Swedish synonym räkenskapsår) and enumerates the returned fields (id and date range). It also explains the role of the id, which lets an agent distinguish this listing tool from the other list_* siblings at a glance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"The id is what SIE and voucher calls take" gives a concrete reason to call this tool before voucher/SIE operations, which is real usage context. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools or stating when not to use it, but the sequencing intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.