keap_get_companyGet a single company by id. Keap: GET /companies/{company_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Comma-separated list of fields to return (field selection). | |
| company_id | Yes | The company id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the endpoint pattern; it does not mention not-found behavior, field-selection effects, or response shape. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.
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 one concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then adds the endpoint as supporting context. Every word earns its place and there is no fluff.
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 single-company GET with only one required parameter, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. There is no output schema, so a note about the return shape would have been a minor bonus, but it is not essential for invocation.
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?
The input schema already describes both company_id and fields with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds no additional parameter nuance beyond confirming the lookup is by id.
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 states a specific action ('Get a single company by id') on a clear resource, distinguishing it from list-style sibling tools like keap_list_companies. Including the HTTP endpoint reinforces the operation without ambiguity.
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 phrase 'by id' clearly implies this tool should be used when a specific company_id is known and a single company is needed, versus listing companies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is unambiguous from the description.
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 clearly distinct resource and action: list_* tools are separated by entity, get_* tools retrieve individual records, and create_/update_/apply_ tools perform unique mutations. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools consistently use the keap_ prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern, such as list_contacts, get_company, create_task, and update_contact. The naming convention is uniform across all 18 tools.
At 18 tools, the count falls into the borderline 16-25 range and feels somewhat heavy for a single server. Each tool does have a distinct purpose, but the set is larger than ideal and includes many read-only list/get operations.
Contacts and tasks have reasonable lifecycle coverage, but most other entities such as opportunities, companies, orders, products, and subscriptions are read-only. Notable operations like removing a tag, updating/deleting tasks, and updating opportunities are missing, creating potential dead ends.