mcp-server-smallinvoice

get_contact_account

Read-only

Retrieve account data for a contact using contact ID and account ID. Optionally specify additional fields to include.

Instructions

Returns data of specified account

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>",
      "account_id": "<account_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_contact_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`contact_id`	Yes	contact ID
`account_id`	Yes	account ID
`with`	No	Comma separated, optional keys that should be included in the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond stating it returns data. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or response behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and fails to convey the tool's purpose clearly. It could be more informative without increasing length.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, the description should provide more context about what data is returned. It only says 'specified account' without hinting at the structure or that it pertains to a contact. The minimal description leaves gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'Returns data of specified account,' which is basic but vague. It does not specify that it retrieves a contact's account, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like get_contact or get_contact_address. The verb 'Returns data' is generic.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many get_ tools for contacts, and the description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios (e.g., needing contact_id and account_id).

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

Deploy Server