Retrieve TallyPrime masters by type, including ledgers, stock items, groups, stock groups, units, godowns, and cost centres, then filter by parent, search term, or company.
List masters of a type: group, stock_group, godown, unit, cost_centre (also ledger / stock_item, names only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| parent | No | Only those under this parent | |
| search | No | ||
| company | No | Company name as shown in Tally. Omit to use the currently active company. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses one behavioral trait: that ledger and stock_item results contain names only. It says nothing about the return shape for other types, ordering, pagination, or whether the read is scoped to the active company.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the type list and the key caveat early; no wasted text. The trailing parenthetical is slightly cryptic but does earn its place by flagging the names-only limitation.
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?
For a four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the return shape for most types, the purpose of 'search' and 'parent' filtering, and any redirect to the richer sibling tools. An agent could call it, but with avoidable guesswork.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no meaning for the undocumented parameters (notably 'search', which has no schema description). It restates the enum values for 'type' rather than explaining filtering semantics, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 a clear verb+resource ('List masters of a type') and enumerates the valid types, which lets an agent distinguish it from list_vouchers or list_backups. The parenthetical 'also ledger / stock_item, names only' partially separates it from list_ledgers and list_stock_items, though the distinction is terse.
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 phrase 'names only' for ledger/stock_item implies those richer sibling tools (list_ledgers, list_stock_items) should be used when more than names is needed, but the description never names them or states when not to use this tool. Usage is inferable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.