sellsy_get_individualGet one individual by id. Needs individuals.read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Individual 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the concrete prerequisite scope 'individuals.read', which is real value not encoded in annotations, but says nothing about not-found behavior, error shapes, or whether embeds fail silently without extra 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and the id requirement front-loaded before the permission note. Nothing needs trimming.
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 coverage, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It leaves out not-found handling and any hint about the returned object shape, which an agent would want before calling.
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%, and the embed parameter's extra-scope caveat and the field projection guidance are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about id validity, embed limitations, or field-selection trade-offs, so it stays at the baseline.
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 individual by id'), making the single-record intent unmistakable versus the list/search siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the singular/plural distinction carries most of the differentiation.
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?
No guidance on when to prefer this over sellsy_search_individuals or sellsy_list_individuals, nor what to do if the id is unknown or the record does not exist. The only conditional information given is the required scope, which is an authorization fact rather than a usage rule.
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.