Initiates MoneyForward Expense API OAuth authentication, returning the authorization URL immediately; default OOB mode shows the verification code on screen.
経費API OAuth認証を開始します。デフォルトはOOBモード（認証コードが画面に表示される）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No | 後方互換のため受け付けるが無視する。認証 URL は常に即座に返す（URL を返す前に待つと、ユーザーが認可できずタイムアウトするため） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait (default OOB mode where the auth code is shown on screen), which is useful. But it omits other relevant behavior: that the auth URL is returned immediately, that the user must authorize in a browser, that credentials/tokens result, and any requirement to call status/callback afterward.
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?
One short sentence stating the action plus one clarifying sentence on the default mode. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the second sentence is parenthetical rather than adding net-new decision guidance.
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 no-arg auth-flow entry point with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core action and the default mode, but does not describe the return value (the auth URL) or the follow-up flow steps. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer the rest of the OAuth sequence from sibling names.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema description already fully documents it (100% coverage), including the backward-compat rationale for ignoring `wait`. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource (start OAuth authentication for the 経費/expense API), which distinguishes it from the sibling auth tools for accounting (mf_accounting_auth_start) and the legacy mf_auth_start. It does not explicitly call out those alternatives, but the product-scoped naming plus verb is unambiguous.
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?
Implied usage is clear from the name and description (this is the entry point of an OAuth flow, ahead of the status/callback siblings). However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of what to do after receiving the URL, and no reference to the sibling mf_expense_auth_status/mf_expense_auth_callback that complete the flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.