get_transferGet a single transfer from QuickBooks Online by Id, when no search or write answer already holds it. An accounting entry recording a transfer between accounts. It does not move money between bank accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | QuickBooks Id of the Transfer. | |
| company | No | Which connected QuickBooks company to use (name, realm id, or connection id). Optional when only one company is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious domain context: a 'transfer' here is a bookkeeping entry and 'does not move money between bank accounts', preventing a wrong interpretation of the returned data. It says nothing about not-found/error behavior or output shape, so it is not a 5.
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?
Three short sentences with the operation and routing condition front-loaded; no filler. The clause 'when no search or write answer already holds it' is slightly awkwardly phrased, which keeps it from being a model of clarity.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description covers identity, scope, and domain meaning adequately. There is no output schema, so a brief note on what a returned transfer contains or what happens if the Id is unknown would have made it complete.
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 both parameters (id, company) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'by Id' and adds nothing about the multi-company parameter or Id formats.
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?
States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Get a single transfer from QuickBooks Online by Id'. It also routes away from siblings ('when no search or write answer already holds it'), implicitly excluding search_transfers and create/update_transfer. The domain gloss ('an accounting entry recording a transfer between accounts') makes the resource unambiguous.
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?
Gives a real selection condition: use this only when no search or write operation already returned the record, which steers the agent toward search_transfers first. It never names that sibling explicitly or states what to do on a not-found result, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
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.