Query accounting journal entries by cost center, project, or activity to analyze financial postings. Read-only access enables controlling data verification without modifications.
Query the accounting journal with controlling variables (cost center, project, activity). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | GraphQL order clause | |
| where | No | GraphQL where filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is useful and prevents misuse, but it does not describe output format, pagination behavior, or any additional side-effect context. The read-only disclosure is valuable, but more behavioral detail would be expected.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, resource, key filtering dimensions, and read-only nature. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 read-only query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and key filter concepts. However, it lacks detail on expected return values, pagination behavior, exact field names for the controlling variables, and guidance relative to overlapping siblings like m3_graphql.
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 description coverage is 50%, with only 'order' and 'where' having generic GraphQL descriptions. The tool description adds meaning by tying the where filter to controlling variables (cost center, project, activity), but skip and take remain undocumented in both schema and description, and exact filter syntax is not provided.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Query') and resource ('accounting journal'), and even names the controlling variables it can filter by. It does not explicitly compare against siblings, but the resource and read-only qualifier are enough to distinguish it from the many creation/deletion tools in the list.
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 description implies usage: use this tool when you need to query the accounting journal with controlling variables. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as pointing to m3_graphql for more general GraphQL queries or to other list tools for related data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.