Set the active company agenda to enable subsequent Money S3 API calls. Use this to select an agenda GUID before querying any data.
Set the active agenda (company) for all subsequent API calls. Required before querying any data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guid | Yes | Agenda GUID from m3_agendas |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates the stateful, persistent side effect ('all subsequent API calls') and the precondition that it is required before querying. It does not mention idempotency, whether it replaces a previous agenda, or error behavior, but the core behavioral trait is transparent.
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, direct sentences. The primary action and session scope are front-loaded, and the critical prerequisite is stated immediately after. 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 single-parameter context-setting tool, the description provides the essential context: what it sets, the scope of effect, and when it is required. The lack of an output schema is minimal concern, though adding a note about what the tool returns on success would make it fully complete.
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 documents the parameter fully with 100% coverage, including the source ('m3_agendas'). The tool description adds useful context that the GUID represents a company, but it does not need to add more because the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 action ('Set the active agenda') and clearly identifies the resource ('company'), then explains its session-wide effect. This distinguishes it from all sibling data-query and mutation tools, which operate on actual data rather than setting context.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before querying any data, and that it applies to all subsequent API calls. This is clear and actionable for an agent, and no alternative sibling tool serves this context-setting role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.