Retrieve a single KikoBooks vendor by ID to view contact details, addresses, and payment terms.
Get a single vendor by ID from KikoBooks. Returns full vendor details including contact, addresses, and payment terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendor_id | Yes | The Vendor 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 exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses what is returned (contact, addresses, payment terms) and 'Get' implies a safe read, but there is no statement on error behavior, permissions, or whether missing IDs error vs return null.
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 resource, and the return-content clause is directly relevant. No filler.
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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the action, the input, and the shape of the return value. Only minor gaps remain around error/missing-record behavior.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The Vendor ID to retrieve'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or type guidance beyond that, which puts it 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 a single vendor by ID') and adds the source system and return scope ('full vendor details'), which cleanly separates it from the many search_* siblings in the same family.
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 'a single vendor by ID' implies the lookup-by-ID use case versus search_vendors, but no explicit alternative or when-to-use condition is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.