Apply confirmed Portuguese tax categories to Xero transactions. Updates AccountCode and TaxType.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| categories | Yes | Array of transaction-to-category assignments | |
| api_key_hash | Yes | Customer API key hash identifying Xero token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool updates AccountCode and TaxType, which indicates mutation, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like idempotency, error handling, whether it operates on the entire array atomically, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the action and outcome. No filler words.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide a complete picture. It fails to mention the return value, any pre-conditions beyond 'confirmed', or how the request is processed (e.g., batch behavior). As a side-effecting tool with a nested array parameter, this is too sparse.
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?
Although the schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), the tool description adds meaningful context by explaining that applying a category affects AccountCode and TaxType, giving semantic weight to the category_code field. The api_key_hash is adequately described in 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?
The description uses the specific verb 'apply' with a clearly defined resource ('Portuguese tax categories' to 'Xero transactions') and states the concrete effect (updates AccountCode and TaxType). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'categorise_expenses' which handles the initial categorization.
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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'categorise_expenses' or 'confirm_reconciliation'. There are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios beyond the word 'confirmed', which implies a prior step but is not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with complementary pairs like categorise_expenses (suggest) and apply_categories (apply), reconcile_transactions (match) and confirm_reconciliation (apply). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_vat, draft_invoice, send_invoice), but 'health' deviates by being a plain noun, and there is a minor British/American spelling variation ('categorise' vs 'calculate').
9 tools is well-scoped for an accounting MCP, covering VAT calculation, categorization, reconciliation, invoicing, reporting, and health checks without redundancy or bloat.
Core workflows are well-covered, especially the propose/apply pairs for categorization and reconciliation. Minor gaps include lack of invoice read/update actions and no explicit transaction listing, but these are not critical given the server's focus.