MF Invoice MCP

mf_refresh_token

Refresh access tokens for the MoneyForward Cloud Invoice API to maintain secure API connections and ensure uninterrupted billing and invoice management operations.

Instructions

アクセストークンをリフレッシュします

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": "mf_refresh_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Feb 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'refreshing' entails—whether it requires existing credentials, returns a new token, has side effects like invalidating old tokens, or involves rate limits. For a security-sensitive operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of token refresh (a security operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., a new token), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools. This leaves critical context missing for an AI agent.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps (none exist). A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters are present.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'アクセストークンをリフレッシュします' (refreshes an access token). It uses a specific verb ('リフレッシュします') and identifies the resource ('アクセストークン'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mf_auth_start' or 'mf_auth_status', which prevents a perfect score.

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., needing an expired token), timing (e.g., after authentication), or related tools like 'mf_auth_start' for initial auth. This lack of context leaves usage ambiguous.

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