get_entityFetch a single entity (e.g. a seat) belonging to a customer. Autumn API: POST /v1/entities.get.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | Related data to expand, e.g. invoices, entities, subscriptions.plan, purchases.plan, balances.feature. | |
| entity_id | Yes | The ID of the entity. | |
| customer_id | Yes | The ID of the customer that owns the entity. |
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?
readOnlyHint already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the endpoint and the customer scoping, but does not disclose error behavior, expand semantics, or response content. It aligns with annotations and adds modest context.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The key scope ('single entity belonging to a customer') is front-loaded, and the API endpoint line provides useful factual context without bloat.
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 fully documented parameters, the description covers what is fetched and its scoping. It does not mention error cases or return shape, but the phrase 'Fetch a single entity' plus the readOnlyHint makes the tool's purpose and safety clear.
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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description restates that the entity belongs to a customer but does not add meaningful semantics beyond 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?
Description clearly states the specific action ('Fetch a single entity'), the resource ('a seat'), and the owning customer. It also names the exact API endpoint, making it easy to distinguish from list_entities and create_entity.
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?
It implies usage when retrieving one specific entity by ID and scopes it to a customer, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_entities or mention any alternatives. The guidance is present but only implicit.
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.
All tools have clearly distinct purposes: get/list for various resources, mutation tools like attach_plan, track_usage, and special tools like preview_attach and autumn_request for edge cases. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_customer, list_plans, create_entity), but a few like autumn_request, preview_attach, and open_customer_portal break the pattern. Still, the naming is clear and predictable overall.
18 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a distinct purpose in the billing domain, covering customers, plans, features, entities, invoices, usage, and portal access. The count is justified by the complexity of the domain.
The tool set covers CRUD for most resources (customers, features, plans, entities, invoices) plus billing operations like attach, check, preview, track usage, and customer portal. Missing delete operations and potential detach, but the read-only autumn_request may cover gaps. Minor gaps, not severe.