Query predefined accounting entries (předkontace) in Money S3 to retrieve read-only accounting templates. Use pagination and ordering to find entries for financial operations.
Query predefined accounting entries (předkontace). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | GraphQL order clause |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the 'Read-only' statement in the description carries important safety information and clearly signals that no mutation occurs. However, the description does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, or any operational characteristics beyond being a read operation, so some behavioral detail is still missing.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the read-only qualifier is stated efficiently. Every word 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 query tool with no required parameters, the description is minimally adequate for selecting the tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify what the returned data looks like, how ordering works, or whether the response is a list or a single object. These gaps leave the agent without full context.
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?
Only one of the three parameters ('order') has a schema description, giving only 33% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and 'skip' and 'take' are left to be inferred from their names. Since coverage is low, the description should have compensated by explaining these parameters, but it does not.
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 a specific resource ('predefined accounting entries'), with the Czech term 'předkontace' adding domain precision. It is also easily distinguished from the sibling m3_create_predefined_entry, which is for creating entries rather than querying them.
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 the tool is for reading predefined entries and not for creating or modifying them, especially given the sibling m3_create_predefined_entry. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or call out any conditions or exclusions, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.