fortnox-mcp

List suppliers

list_suppliers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve suppliers from the supplier register to review vendor details for accounts payable tasks, with an optional row limit.

Instructions

Supplier register.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_suppliers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`max`	No	Max rows to return (default 100, up to 2000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination limits, sorting, or whether the register includes inactive suppliers, which is the kind of context that would earn credit here.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — the fragment "Supplier register." does not function as a usable instruction and wastes the only sentence available.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and complete annotations, the description still leaves basic questions unanswered: what fields a supplier record contains and how this list relates to get_supplier. The structured fields carry most of the load, but the prose is too thin to be considered complete.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ("max": "Max rows to return (default 100, up to 2000)"), the schema fully documents the input. The description contributes no additional meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Supplier register." is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name and title without a verb or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_supplier or list_supplier_invoices, so an agent gets almost no signal about what the call actually returns.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_supplier for a single supplier, list_supplier_invoices for invoices), and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the listing intent purely from the tool name.

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