Retrieve and update activities (činnosti) used as controlling variables in Money S3. Supports pagination via skip and take parameters.
Query activities (činnosti) — controlling variable. Read/write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No |
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 burden, but it only says 'Read/write'. This is misleading because the input schema only has pagination parameters, indicating a read-only list operation. There is no explanation of returned data, pagination behavior, or any side effects.
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?
While short, the description wastes space on confusing phrases like 'controlling variable' and the contradictory 'Read/write'. The only helpful part is 'Query activities'; the rest detracts from clarity rather than earning its place.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what 'activities' means in this M3 context, how to interpret the results, or how this differs from related tools like m3_crm_activities.
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 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'skip' and 'take' parameters. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without any understanding of pagination or limits.
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 states a verb and resource ('Query activities'), so it is not a tautology. However, the phrase 'controlling variable' is cryptic and 'Read/write' muddies the purpose by suggesting mutation, which the schema does not support. It also does not distinguish this from sibling tools like m3_crm_activities.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference m3_crm_activities or m3_create_activity, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.