Firefly III MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'with full details', indicating the response includes comprehensive account data rather than a summary, but omits error handling behavior (e.g., account not found) or authentication requirements.

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 single 9-word sentence is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and resource. No redundant or filler text is present; every word serves a purpose for this simple retrieval operation.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it should ideally characterize what 'full details' encompasses (e.g., balance, type, transactions) or error conditions.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('Account ID'), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no supplementary parameter semantics (e.g., ID format, where to obtain it), earning the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'account', and the scoping 'by ID with full details'. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'firefly_list_accounts' by specifying 'single', though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'firefly_list_accounts' (use when ID is known vs. when browsing/searching) or prerequisites for the ID parameter.

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