yimu-mcp

save_bill_file

save_bill_file

Add or update a bill attachment in Yimu bookkeeping, linking files to bills with remote path, file name, and size details.

Instructions

新增或更新账单附件（POST /billFile/addOrUpdateBillFile，upsert：带主键为更新）。entity 字段：fileId 主键；billId 关联账单；remotePath 远程路径；fileName 文件名；fileSize 大小；transferId/lendId 可选

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "entity": "<entity>"
    },
    "name": "save_bill_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes	账单附件对象

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does 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 the HTTP method, endpoint, upsert behavior, and the condition that determines update vs. add. It does not mention return values or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire definition is one compact sentence with a parenthetical endpoint and a semicolon-separated field list. Every part earns its place, the action is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers the operation, endpoint, upsert logic, and all known entity fields. It lacks explicit return-format and required-field details, but these are minor for this simple upsert call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only describes 'entity' as '账单附件对象', while the description enumerates all meaningful subfields: fileId as primary key, billId, remotePath, fileName, fileSize, and the optional transferId/lendId. This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with '新增或更新账单附件' (add or update bill attachment), naming a specific verb and resource, and gives the exact endpoint. It further clarifies the upsert semantics with '带主键为更新', so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like save_bill or delete_bill_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this tool to add or update a bill attachment, and include the primary key to trigger an update instead of an insert. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.