Retrieve a single journal entry by ID from KikoBooks to view full details, including debit/credit lines, posting status, and audit hash.
Get a single journal entry by ID from KikoBooks. Returns full entry details including debit/credit lines, posting status, and audit hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | The Journal Entry ID to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses return content (debit/credit lines, posting status, audit hash), but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or error behavior for a missing/voided entry.
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, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the return contents. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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?
With no output schema, describing the returned fields is the right compensating detail, and it covers the essentials for a simple single-entity fetch. The absence of any note about missing entries or permissions is a minor gap.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('The Journal Entry ID to retrieve'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a single journal entry by ID'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with search_journal_entries. It is clear but never names the sibling tools it must be distinguished from.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of search_journal_entries as the way to discover IDs, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'by ID'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.