codat_requestPower-user escape hatch: GET any Codat API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool. READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed. Path starts with a slash (e.g. "/companies/{id}/data/taxRates", "/companies/{id}/reports/agedDebtor"). Codat API: GET {path}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | API path starting with a slash, e.g. "/companies/{id}/data/items". | |
| query | No | Optional query params object. |
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context: 'Power-user escape hatch', 'only GET is allowed', and path format rules. It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but the annotation covers the key behavioral trait.
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 sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
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 description is reasonably complete for a generic GET tool: it covers purpose, usage constraints, path format, and query parameters. No output schema exists, so return values are not described, which is acceptable given the tool's open-ended nature.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'path' and 'query'. The description adds meaningful examples (e.g., '/companies/{id}/data/taxRates') and clarifies path format (must start with slash), going 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?
The description clearly states 'Power-user escape hatch: GET any Codat API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool.' This specifies the verb (GET) and resource (any Codat API path), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover specific endpoints.
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 this tool is for reading via GET only, implying it should not be used for mutations. It gives path format examples but does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond read-only.
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 targets a distinct resource or action (e.g., companies, connections, invoices, financial statements). Even similar-looking tools like the three financial statements are clearly differentiated by their names and descriptions. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'codat_verb_noun' (e.g., codat_create_company, codat_list_invoices, codat_get_balance_sheet). No mixing of styles or irregular naming.
28 tools cover the main read and refresh operations across Codat's domain (companies, connections, accounting data, integrations). The count feels well-scoped for a data aggregation platform, not excessive.
The tool set focuses heavily on reading and listing data, with only create for companies/connections and refresh triggers. Missing update/delete for many entities (e.g., invoices, bills). An escape hatch exists but is GET-only. Notable gaps for write workflows.