MF Invoice MCP

mf_get_partner

Retrieve detailed information about business partners from the MoneyForward Cloud Invoice system to manage quotes and invoices efficiently.

Instructions

取引先の詳細情報を取得します

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": {
      "partner_id": "<partner_id>"
    },
    "name": "mf_get_partner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`partner_id`	Yes	取引先ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Feb 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 states it's a read operation ('取得します' - get), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields, format). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what 'detailed information' means (output), authentication needs, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and application.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'partner_id' ('取引先ID' - partner ID), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't explain the parameter's role or constraints (e.g., format, source).

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description '取引先の詳細情報を取得します' (Get detailed information of a partner) clearly states the verb ('取得します' - get) and resource ('取引先' - partner), but it's vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'mf_list_partners' (which likely lists partners) or 'mf_get_billing' (which gets billing details).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), differentiate from 'mf_list_partners' (for listing vs. getting details), or specify use cases (e.g., retrieving a specific partner by ID).

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