Fetch connected service accounts, including auto-linked and manually managed ones, from Money Forward Cloud Accounting using an office code.
連携サービス（自動連携・手動管理とも）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?
取得します clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation with no indication of side effects, which is helpful given that no annotations are present. However, the description does not disclose additional behavioral context such as authentication expectations, response shape, or pagination, so the full burden is not completely met.
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 efficient Japanese sentence that front-loads the resource and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse one-sentence description, the tool definition lacks sufficient context about what a caller should expect in the response and how this tool fits among many sibling getter tools. The invocation itself is simple, but the completeness of the overall definition is limited.
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 single parameter office_code is already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb (取得します) and names a clear resource (連携サービス), with the parenthetical clarifying it covers both automatic and manually managed connections. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like mfc_ca_getAccounts, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 mfc_ca_getAccounts or mfc_ca_getSubAccounts. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.