sellsy_get_credit_noteGet one credit note by id. Needs credit-notes.read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Credit note 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 safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond that — the required scope 'credit-notes.read' — but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid id or about errors from embed scopes.
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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the auth requirement trailing as a short constraint. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.
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 rich annotations and fully documented parameters, this covers the essentials, including the required scope. Only the behavior on a nonexistent id or an unauthorized embed is left unstated, a minor gap for a lookup tool.
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 the id, embed and field parameters each documented with examples and constraints, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.
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 credit note by id'), and 'one ... by id' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_credit_notes. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction from the name pattern.
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' implies retrieval of a known record rather than browsing, which points away from list_credit_notes, but no when-to-use or when-not guidance is stated. Alternatives such as sellsy_list_credit_notes are never mentioned.
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.