Lists supported bank statement providers, banks, and file formats to enable borderou import and reconciliation.
List available borderou (bank statement) providers. Returns supported banks and file formats for bank statement import and reconciliation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | No | Company UUID override (uses active company if not set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload contains supported banks and file formats, which is genuinely useful return context given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about whether the catalog is global or company-scoped despite the companyId parameter.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. The parenthetical gloss on 'borderou' earns its place by disambiguating a domain term.
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 trivial read-only catalog lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — only the company-scoping behavior of the result is unstated. Annotations carry the rest.
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% and the single optional companyId is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not mention companyId at all, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Uses a specific verb (List) plus resource (borderou/bank statement providers) and even decodes the domain term 'borderou' for readers. It distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings (borderou_upload, borderou_transactions_save) by being purely a catalog listing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 phrase 'for bank statement import and reconciliation' implies this is a discovery step before uploading or matching statements, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many borderou_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.