Fetch project data (zakázky) from Money S3 accounting system for controlling and analysis. Supports pagination to read project lists.
Query projects (zakázky) — 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Read/write' but does not clarify what write behavior is available, what the side effects are, or whether authentication is needed. The internal tension between 'Query' and 'Read/write' makes behavior less transparent, not more.
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 short and front-loads the action phrase 'Query projects.' However, 'controlling variable' and 'Read/write' are cryptic fragments that raise questions rather than earning their place, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and no description of the return format, pagination behavior, or what fields a project object contains. For a simple query tool this is a notable gap, and the ambiguous read/write claim raises additional unanswered questions about mutating behavior.
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 says nothing about the skip/take parameters. The schema's names and defaults hint at pagination, but the description does not confirm this or explain how results are ordered or bounded. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate, and 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Query projects') and provides a Czech term in parentheses, so the core object is identifiable. However, the appended 'Read/write' contradicts the 'Query' framing by implying mutation operations without specifying them. It also does not differentiate this tool from siblings like m3_create_project or m3_set_agenda.
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. The phrase 'controlling variable' hints at context but is unexplained. With over 60 sibling tools, an agent gets no help choosing between m3_projects and related project or read/write tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.