list_account_dimensionsRetrieve account dimensions (alamkontod), optionally for a single account, to inspect account structure and choose valid dimensions for journal entries.
Get account dimensions (alamkontod), optionally for one account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | Only dimensions of this account (e.g. 1020). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / account_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only dimensions of this account (e.g. 1020).",
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond structured data — it doesn't describe the return shape, ordering, or whether all dimensions are returned when no account is given.
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?
One tight sentence with the resource stated first and the optional scope modifier trailing. No wasted words, though the extreme brevity leans toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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, read-only, single-optional-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. An agent knows what it retrieves and whether to filter, though it gets no hint about the result shape or how a 'dimension' is represented.
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% with a single optional parameter, so the schema already documents account_id thoroughly. The description's 'optionally for one account' merely restates the schema rather than adding format or range meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account dimensions'), with the alternate term 'alamkontod' clarifying the domain concept. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like list_accounts or compute_account_dimension_balances, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.
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 'optionally for one account' hints at the filtering behavior but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting it over alternatives, and no mention of siblings such as compute_account_dimension_balances.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.