Skip to main content
Glama
dsfaccini

Siigo MCP Server

by dsfaccini
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

get_journal

Retrieve a specific journal entry by its ID to access complete details including all line items from Siigo's electronic invoicing system.

Instructions

Get a journal entry by ID.

Args: journal_id: The journal's GUID

Returns the full journal entry details including all line items.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
journal_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/siigo_mcp/tools/journals.py:37-47 (handler)
    The handler function that implements the get_journal tool. It retrieves a specific journal entry by its ID using the Siigo API client.
    @mcp.tool
async def get_journal(ctx: Context, journal_id: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
    """Get a journal entry by ID.

    Args:
        journal_id: The journal's GUID

    Returns the full journal entry details including all line items.
    """
    return await get_client(ctx).get(f"/journals/{journal_id}")
  • src/siigo_mcp/tools/discovery.py:107-110 (registration)
    Registration of the get_journal tool in the lazy-loading tool functions dictionary, mapping the tool name to the imported journals.get_journal function.
    # Journals
"list_journals": journals.list_journals,
"get_journal": journals.get_journal,
"create_journal": journals.create_journal,
  • src/siigo_mcp/tools/discovery.py:55-55 (schema)
    Metadata entry for the get_journal tool in the TOOL_INDEX, providing name, category, and summary for discovery purposes.
    {"name": "get_journal", "category": "journals", "summary": "Get a journal entry by ID"},

Tool Definition Quality

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns full details including line items, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval. However, it lacks information on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated), leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Get a journal entry by ID'), followed by concise parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return scope. However, with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like safety or constraints to fully compensate for the missing structured data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'journal_id' is a GUID and clarifies what the tool returns (full entry details including line items), compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions. With only one parameter, this provides adequate context, though it could specify the GUID format more precisely.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a journal entry by ID'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_journals' (which retrieves multiple entries) or other 'get_' tools that fetch different resources, missing an opportunity for clearer sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_journals' for retrieving multiple entries or other 'get_' tools for different resources, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dsfaccini/siigo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server