list_connectionsRetrieve all configured e-arveldaja connections and identify the active index. Use it to verify available integrations before managing invoices or journal entries.
List configured e-arveldaja connections and the active index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.18.1Does 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 by structured data. The description adds only that the response includes the active index, which is a small but useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the resource ('configured connections') is front-loaded before the extra detail about the active index. Nothing is redundant with the title.
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 no-argument, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only ambiguity is what 'active index' refers to, which is not defined anywhere and could matter to an agent interpreting the result.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly makes no parameter claims that would need extra explanation.
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 (List) and resource (configured e-arveldaja connections plus the active index). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from the nearby credential tools such as list_stored_credentials, with which 'connections' could easily be confused.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. The description offers neither a use context nor an exclusion, so the agent must infer that this is a discovery/status step before switch_connection or credential operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.