Lists accounting accounts from Holded with cursor-based pagination, enabling you to retrieve account records page by page using a limit and cursor.
List accounting accounts (Holded API v2). Cursor-paginated. For the v1 read-only chart of accounts see get_chart_of_accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items per page | |
| cursor | No | Cursor from a previous response nextCursor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does 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 pagination behavior and the API version, but says nothing about return shape, default page size, whether archived/inactive accounts are included, or auth requirements. Enough for a trivial read, but thin for an unannotated tool.
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?
Three short sentences with zero waste; the resource identity and pagination scope are front-loaded, and the sibling routing follows immediately.
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 two-parameter, no-required-arg list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, version, pagination, and the main alternative. A brief note on what a page item contains or the default limit would close the remaining gap.
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 both parameters (limit, cursor) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates pagination at a high level and adds no syntax, default, or max-limit guidance beyond what the schema provides. 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List accounting accounts') and adds an API-version qualifier, then explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_chart_of_accounts. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.
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?
It names one alternative explicitly and gives the condition that selects it ('For the v1 read-only chart of accounts see get_chart_of_accounts'). It does not address the other nearby accounting siblings (create_accounting_account, list_expenses_accounts, list_ledger_entries), so routing is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.