Retrieve business information and current accounting period for a specific office using its office code. Simplifies access to office details for accounting operations.
事業者情報と会計期間を取得します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| office_code | No | 対象事業者の事業者番号（XXXX-XXXX）。APIキー認証では必須。MF_OFFICE_CODE を設定していれば省略可 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('取得します') but does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, error conditions, or how the office code is resolved when omitted. The parameter schema mentions API key authentication, but the description itself adds little behavioral context.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and result. There is no redundant wording or filler, though it is so brief that it leaves contextual gaps.
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?
This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description states what is returned, and the schema covers the parameter. However, given no annotations and no usage guidance, the description could still be more complete about when to use it and what the returned data looks like.
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%, and the office_code parameter is documented with its format, optionality, and authentication condition. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already covers it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear action ('取得します' – retrieves) and a specific resource ('事業者情報と会計期間' – business operator information and accounting period). It does not explicitly compare against siblings like list_offices or mfc_ca_getTermSettings, but the resource is specific enough to identify its purpose.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_offices, auth_status, or mfc_ca_getTermSettings. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, so an agent must infer usage from the name and minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.