Retrieves the list of offices (business entities) available in MoneyForward Expense. Use it to fetch office IDs and names before filing expenses or managing users.
事業者一覧を取得します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, result ordering, scope of the list, or authentication needs. It conveys only that a list is returned, which is already implied by the name.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though almost too terse to be informative.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description should explain what a caller gets back and any scoping or auth constraints. It does none of this, leaving the agent with only the tool name to work from.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to add, and the empty schema is self-consistent with a no-argument list tool.
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 clear verb and resource in Japanese: retrieving a list of 事業者 (business operators/offices). This is specific enough to distinguish a list operation, but it does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as mf_expense_list_depts, mf_expense_list_projects, or mf_accounting_get_office.
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 the many sibling list tools, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., authentication requirement). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.