Cuéntica MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_transfers

Read-only

List account transfers filtered by origin, destination, date range, amount, payment method, and sort order. Use filters to narrow results.

Instructions

Lista traspasos entre cuentas. payment_method: cash|wire_transfer|promissory_note.

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_transfers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`origin_account`	No
`destination_account`	No
`initial_date`	No
`end_date`	No
`min_total_limit`	No
`max_total_limit`	No
`payment_method`	No
`sort`	No
`page`	No
`page_size`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds minimal behavioral context (listing, not modifying). No contradictions.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing available filters).

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?

Despite the readOnly annotation and presence of an output schema, the description does not explain pagination, default sort order, or how to interpret the output. With 10 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the tool is under-documented for a list endpoint.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning for one parameter (payment_method with enum values). Other parameters like origin_account, dates, limits, sort, pagination are left unexplained, forcing reliance on parameter names which may be ambiguous.

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 verb 'Lista' (list) and the resource 'traspasos entre cuentas' (transfers between accounts). It also provides the allowed values for payment_method, distinguishing it from other list tools for different entities.

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 implicitly indicates usage for listing transfers, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like get_transfer (single record) or list_accounts (different entity). However, the context from sibling tool names and the tool's name is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

Deploy Server