Detalha uma ou mais transações por id. Passe transaction_ids (lista, máx 50) — busca em lote com retry/backoff e erros por-id; ou transaction_id único.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| transaction_id | No | ||
| transaction_ids | No |
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?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior details: batch retry/backoff and per-ID error handling, which goes beyond annotations and sets proper expectations.
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 efficiently written in one sentence, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the batch behavior. No unnecessary 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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain return values or structure. While it mentions per-ID errors, the overall result format is missing, which could hinder an AI agent's understanding of tool output.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two key parameter paths (transaction_ids with max 50 and single transaction_id) and batch behavior. It adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves transaction details by ID, supporting both single and batch (max 50) queries. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like procfy_list_transactions and procfy_create_transaction.
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 explains when to use the tool (for retrieving transactions by ID, single or batch) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. The use case is clear given siblings.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, especially the procfy_list_* tools which each target a different entity. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are also distinguishable. However, the marketplace tool is multi-purpose with different actions, which could cause some confusion, but descriptions help.
Procfy-specific tools follow a consistent 'procfy_verb_noun' pattern, but platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) lack a prefix and mix verb and noun forms (e.g., marketplace is a noun). This inconsistency in naming conventions across the set reduces clarity.
With 16 tools, it's slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but still reasonable for a domain covering multiple entities (accounts, bank accounts, categories, etc.). The inclusion of platform tools (6) contributes to the count, but they are necessary for the server's operation.
The server provides extensive list operations and a create for transactions, but lacks update/delete for transactions and CRUD for other entities (categories, contacts, etc.). No tool for getting individual entities (except transaction and bank account balance) or creating/modifying them. Significant gaps for a full lifecycle.