Retrieves a single journal entry by its ID from Money Forward Cloud Accounting. Provide the journal ID to get the full entry details, with optional office code for API key authentication.
仕訳を1件取得します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 仕訳ID（URLエンコード済みのまま） | |
| 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 states only the core operation and reveals nothing about return format, not-found behavior, or the authentication requirements hinted at in the office_code schema. For a get-tool with real auth nuance, this is a notable gap.
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, grammatically complete Japanese sentence with zero filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. There is no unnecessary repetition of the tool name or schema 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?
For a low-complexity by-ID fetch with a fully documented two-parameter schema, the one-line description is nearly sufficient. However, it omits context around the office_code/auth conditional and the relationship to the getJournals list tool, and with no output schema there is no fallback for return-value expectations. A sentence of added context would make it complete.
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 are well documented: id is explicitly a URL-encoded journal ID, and office_code covers the API-key-auth requirement and the MF_OFFICE_CODE escape hatch. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
仕訳を1件取得します names a specific verb (取得/get), a specific resource (仕訳/journal), and an explicit single-record scope (1件). This distinguishes it from the plural sibling mfc_ca_getJournals, whose list semantics are implied by contrast. It misses a 5 only because it never explicitly names the sibling or states 'by ID' in the description.
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. It does not mention that getJournals is the list counterpart, nor does it address the office_code/auth condition that determines whether the optional parameter is needed. An agent must infer usage context from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.