Firefly III MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate non-destructive write operation (destructiveHint: false, readOnlyHint: false). Description adds critical behavioral constraint that account_role applies 'only for asset accounts', clarifying parameter interdependencies not obvious from schema alone.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, account type taxonomy, and role constraint. Information is front-loaded and every clause provides essential domain context.

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?

Adequately covers the 11-parameter domain by explaining the conceptual model (types and roles) rather than repeating schema details. No output schema exists; description appropriately focuses on input semantics rather than return values.

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 has 100% description coverage. Description enriches enum semantics by mapping abstract types to real-world entities (e.g., 'asset (bank accounts, wallets)', 'ccAsset (credit card)'), helping agents select appropriate values.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'Create' and resource 'account in Firefly III'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (create_budget, create_transaction, etc.) by focusing specifically on account creation and detailing the five account types supported.

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?

Provides clear context for selecting account types (asset for banks/wallets, expense for stores, etc.) and specifies role constraints ('only for asset accounts'). Lacks explicit comparison to siblings like 'use firefly_update_account for existing accounts'.

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