AFAS MCP Server

AFAS connection info

afas_connection_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Shows the AFAS environment this server connects to and verifies token access by requesting the Profit version.

Instructions

Show which AFAS environment this server talks to and confirm the token works by asking for the Profit version.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "afas_connection_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the tool performs a live round-trip to the AFAS environment (openWorldHint) and its success/failure reflects whether the configured token is valid, which is exactly what an agent needs to know.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary outcome (which environment) and then the secondary benefit (token validation). No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. Purpose, live-call behavior, and the auth-check implication are all present, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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?

The description states a specific verb and target: show which AFAS environment this server talks to, and verify the token by requesting the Profit version. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as afas_list_connectors or afas_get_rows, which deal with connectors and data rows rather than connection/environment diagnostics.

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 phrase 'confirm the token works' gives clear context for when to call it: connectivity and credential checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of the 5 bar, but no inference is needed for the primary use case.

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

Deploy Server