Fetch your MoneyForward expense transaction list by office ID and filter by date range or reported status to review or process claims.
自分の経費明細一覧を取得します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ページ番号 | |
| limit | No | 取得件数（最大1000） | |
| office_id | Yes | 事業者ID | |
| is_reported | No | 申請に含まれるかで絞り込み（false=未申請のみ） | |
| recognized_at_to | No | 日付の終了日（YYYY-MM-DD） | |
| recognized_at_from | No | 日付の開始日（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. It does not disclose pagination behavior (important given page/limit parameters), default sorting, maximum result limits, or required permissions. It only states the basic retrieval action with no additional behavioral context.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, appropriately front-loaded. However, its brevity leaves room for additional helpful context without becoming verbose, and it lacks any routing or behavioral detail.
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 annotations, no output schema, and six parameters (though schema coverage is high), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly in a complex expense API.
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 the schema already documents all six parameters including pagination, date range, and is_reported filtering. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies when the schema fully handles parameter documentation.
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 clear verb+resource: '自分の経費明細一覧を取得します' (retrieve one's own expense transaction list). This distinguishes it from mf_expense_get_transaction (single transaction) and mf_expense_list_reports (reports) by its 'list' plural scope, though it does not explicitly name siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives like mf_expense_get_transaction for single records or mf_expense_list_reports, nor does it explain filtering scenarios such as the is_reported parameter. Agents must infer usage context solely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.