Creates a new activity in the Money S3 accounting system by submitting activity code and name to the async import queue.
Create an activity (činnost). Async import queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Activity code | |
| name | Yes | Activity name | |
| definitionShortcut | No | XML transfer shortcut | _CN |
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. It does disclose a key behavior: the operation is queued asynchronously ('Async import queue'). However, it does not explain what that means for the caller (e.g., no synchronous result, how to verify success, possible delays), leaving a meaningful gap.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and 'Async import queue' packs an important behavioral detail into few words. Every token earns 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 simple 3-parameter create tool, the essential action is stated, but the asynchronous queue behavior is left unexplained, and with no output schema the agent does not know what to expect as a return. This is adequate but has clear gaps, such as how to confirm successful creation and what happens on failure.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; 'code' and 'name' remain defined only by their schema descriptions. The 'import queue' phrase hints at how parameters are consumed but does not clarify their semantics.
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 specific verb ('Create') and resource ('activity'), reinforced by the Czech gloss 'činnost', which clearly distinguishes it from listing-type siblings like m3_activities. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling create tools, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only hint is 'Async import queue', which implies asynchronous behavior but does not tell the agent when this tool should be selected over other create/list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.