Creates an expense transaction in MoneyForward for expense filing by providing amount, office ID, and recognition date, plus optional memo, department, project, and tax details.
経費明細を作成します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memo | No | メモ | |
| value | Yes | 金額 | |
| remark | No | 摘要 | |
| dept_id | No | 部門ID | |
| office_id | Yes | 事業者ID | |
| ex_item_id | No | 経費科目ID | |
| project_id | No | プロジェクトID | |
| dr_excise_id | No | 税区分ID | |
| recognized_at | Yes | 日付（YYYY-MM-DD） |
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 behavioral burden, and it says only that a record is created. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, required permissions, validation rules, or what the response contains for this mutation.
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 short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is so minimal that its conciseness reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-line description is inadequate; it omits required-field dependencies, ID sourcing, and any behavioral context an agent would need to invoke 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%, so all nine parameters (office_id, value, recognized_at, etc.) are already documented in the schema with Japanese labels. The description adds no additional meaning such as format constraints or ID sourcing, 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?
The description states a specific verb (作成) and resource (経費明細), so the agent knows this creates an expense line item. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like mf_expense_update_transaction or mf_expense_upload_receipt beyond the basic create verb.
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 alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., which office/dept/科目 IDs must exist first), and no mention of auth requirements despite the presence of mf_expense_auth_start siblings. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.