Adds a new cost center (středisko) to Money S3 using its code and name, queued asynchronously for import.
Create a cost center (středisko). Async import queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Cost center code | |
| name | Yes | Cost center name | |
| definitionShortcut | No | XML transfer shortcut | _ST |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key fact that creation is asynchronous via an import queue, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what happens after enqueueing, whether a job identifier is returned, how to monitor success or failure, or whether duplicates are rejected.
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 extremely concise: two short sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and adds a relevant behavioral trait in the second. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema details.
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 three-parameter creation tool, the description covers the core purpose and the asynchronous nature. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left uncertain about the operational semantics of the async queue, such as how to confirm the cost center was actually created or if any error handling is needed.
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?
The input schema already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond naming the resource, but because the schema documents code, name, and definitionShortcut, the description does not need to compensate heavily.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a cost center (středisko).' It clearly states what the tool does and the parenthetical clarifies the domain term. Among many sibling m3_create_* tools, the resource is unambiguous, and the 'Async import queue' note distinguishes this as a queued creation operation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as m3_cost_centers or other m3_create_* tools. The 'Async import queue' hint implies a batch/import workflow, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or which sibling should be used for non-async creation or for reading cost centers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.