get_accountsRetrieve active chart of accounts, including account numbers and names, and filter by company or account name for bookkeeping lookups.
Chart of accounts (kontoplan): active account numbers and names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Filter on account name | |
| company | No | Company id or name; may be omitted with one company |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by specifying that only *active* accounts are returned (implying inactive accounts are filtered out), which the annotations do not convey. It says nothing about ordering, pagination or company-scoping behavior.
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?
A single short fragment with zero filler, and the key qualifier ('active') and domain synonym ('kontoplan') are front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded.
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 simple read-only lookup with two optional, fully documented parameters, an output schema and complete safety annotations, this is nearly sufficient. The only missing piece an agent might want is how this list relates to other finance-reporting tools.
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%: 'query' (filter on account name) and 'company' (id or name, omittable with one company) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names the specific resource ('Chart of accounts (kontoplan)') and its contents ('active account numbers and names'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_financial_report or get_transactions, which is the only clarity gap.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.