Fetch sub-accounts from Money Forward Cloud Accounting. Filter by active status or office code to retrieve only the needed records for accounting operations.
補助科目を取得します。
| 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, and it reveals nothing. A getter among many similar getters gives no context about response shape, auth requirements, pagination, or how the available parameter filters results. The interesting semantic that available=false means 'all (active+inactive), not inactive-only' is left entirely to the schema.
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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool needing to distinguish itself among many sibling getters, the description is too thin to earn its place with value.
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?
Despite the tool being relatively simple and the schema covering parameters, the description is incomplete for an agent: it doesn't differentiate sub-accounts from accounts, explain the filtering behavior of available, or set expectations for the response. Among roughly two dozen siblings, this lacks the contextual framing an agent needs to select it correctly.
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%, with both parameters documented — the available parameter even includes a useful warning that false does not mean 'inactive only'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting and does it well, the description doesn't need to compensate, so baseline 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 '補助科目を取得します。' ('Gets sub-accounts') states a verb and resource but simply restates what the tool name 'getSubAccounts' already communicates. It adds no elaboration on what a sub-account is or how it differs from the sibling getAccounts tool, so it borders on tautology rather than genuine clarification.
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 its many sibling getters, particularly the closely related mfc_ca_getAccounts. No when/when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned anywhere in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.