Fetch departments from Money Forward Cloud Accounting. Optionally filter for active departments only or include disabled ones, and provide office_code when required.
部門を取得します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| available | No | 省略/true=有効のみ、false=全件（有効+無効）。falseは『無効のみ』ではない点に注意 | |
| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieves departments' and does not mention whether active-only filtering is default, what happens with available=false, authentication requirements, or any return behavior. The parameter schema supplies some behavior, but the description itself adds almost nothing beyond the operation type.
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 short Japanese sentence with no filler or unnecessary detail. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so it is concise but not appropriately sized for the agent's needs.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description needed to explain return values, default filtering behavior, and when to use this tool. It only says 'gets departments,' leaving the agent to infer important context from the parameter schema and sibling tool names. The schema covers parameter semantics but not usage context or expected results.
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 both parameters have clear descriptions, including the nuance that available=false means all records including inactive ones and that office_code is required under API-key authentication. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, 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 verb and resource: 取得します (retrieve) and 部門 (departments). It is concise and the resource is distinct from the sibling tools, which contain no other department-fetching tool. However, it does not explain what kind of departments are being retrieved or how they relate to an office, so it is clear but minimal.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other getter tools in the sibling list, nor any statement about prerequisites such as authentication or which office context applies. The schema mentions office_code but the description itself gives no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.