Retrieve a KikoBooks credit memo by ID to view full details, including line items and application history.
Get a credit memo by ID from KikoBooks. Returns full credit memo details including line items and application history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credit_memo_id | Yes | The credit memo ID to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states what comes back (line items and application history), but says nothing about error behavior for invalid IDs, permissions, or the read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get'.
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, purpose front-loaded, and the return contents appended without filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, describing the returned payload (line items, application history) fills the main gap. Missing only edge-case behavior such as invalid-ID handling, which is a minor omission at this complexity.
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 single parameter is already documented as 'The credit memo ID to retrieve'. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 a credit memo) plus the lookup key (by ID), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_credit_memos, so it falls short of a 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?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for direct retrieval when an identifier is already known, which distinguishes it implicitly from search_credit_memos. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or fallback guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.