sellsy_get_companyGet one company by id. Needs companies.read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Company id. | |
| embed | No | Related objects to include (each may need an extra scope and is null without it), e.g. ["invoicing_address","main_contact","cf.1542"]. | |
| field | No | Only return these fields, e.g. ["id","name"] or ["address.id"], to keep replies small. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the required scope ('Needs companies.read.'), which is real auth context, but says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown or about scopes needed by embedded relations.
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, no waste, purpose front-loaded before the permission requirement. Nothing to trim.
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-record read with full schema documentation and rich annotations, nothing critical is missing. A brief note on not-found behavior would make it fully 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%, including detailed notes on embed scopes and field projection, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond naming the id in prose.
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 ('Get one company by id'), which clearly separates it from the list_/search_ siblings by scope. It does not name an alternative explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
'by id' implies the tool is for direct lookups when an identifier is known, which implicitly routes agents away from sellsy_search_companies / sellsy_list_companies. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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.