Fetch journal entries from Money Forward Accounting by specifying start or end date. Filter results by account, transaction IDs, and pagination for targeted retrieval.
仕訳一覧を取得します。start_date または end_date のいずれかが必要。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| per_page | No | 最大10000 | |
| account_id | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| is_realized | No | ||
| 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 | |
| transaction_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the date requirement but omits pagination behavior, default ordering, result limits, authorization needs, or response format. For a read operation with no safety hints, this is a significant 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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the purpose before the constraint. It is efficient and to the point, but given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), it may be too brief to be considered fully appropriate in size.
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?
The description is severely incomplete for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It fails to explain return structure, pagination, filtering semantics, office_code requirements, or any other essential context an agent would need to call the tool correctly. The lack of any output schema or annotation coverage makes this a major deficiency.
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 coverage is only 25% (per_page and office_code have descriptions). The description adds the requirement that start_date or end_date is needed, which is not reflected in the schema's required array (since none are marked required). However, it does not explain the other six parameters (page, account_id, is_realized, transaction_ids, etc.) or their semantics, leaving them undocumented in both schema and description.
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 clearly states the action (取得する = get) and resource (仕訳一覧 = journal list). The plural 'Journals' in the tool name and '一覧' (list) differentiate it from sibling tools like mfc_ca_getJournalById. However, it doesn't explicitly mention filtering capabilities or contrast with related list tools (e.g., getAccounts), so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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 only states that either start_date or end_date is required, which is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance. It does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like mfc_ca_getJournalById or mfc_ca_postJournals, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. No guidance on pagination or other use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.