Execute raw GraphQL queries and mutations against the Money S3 API to handle advanced accounting scenarios not covered by built-in tools.
Execute a raw GraphQL query or mutation against the Money S3 API. For advanced use when built-in tools don't cover a specific need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Full GraphQL query or mutation string | |
| isMutation | No | Set true if this is a mutation (invalidates cache) |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool can execute both queries and mutations, which signals side-effect potential, and 'raw' implies arbitrary/unrestricted operations. However, it does not mention cache invalidation consequences, error behavior, or the need for caution with mutations beyond the schema's isMutation note.
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 main action is front-loaded and the usage context immediately follows.
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?
This is a high-complexity escape-hatch tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description gives minimal guidance beyond the purpose. It does not explain how to discover valid GraphQL operations, authorization or rate-limit expectations, or what the response looks like, leaving an agent to guess at critical invocation details.
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%, and both query and isMutation are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither improves nor harms the baseline provided by the schema.
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 begins with a specific action and target: 'Execute a raw GraphQL query or mutation against the Money S3 API.' It also distinguishes the tool from the many domain-specific m3_* siblings by classifying it as the raw/advanced fallback.
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 'For advanced use when built-in tools don't cover a specific need' gives a clear selection condition and implies that the domain-specific siblings should be preferred for normal use. It does not name particular alternatives, but the sibling list makes those obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.