simple-salesforce-mcp

get_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single Salesforce record by its 15- or 18-character Id. Specify the object type and optionally select fields to return.

Instructions

Fetch a single Salesforce record by Id.

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": {
      "object_type": "<object_type>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	No	Field API names to return (relationship paths like Account.Name allowed). Omit for all accessible fields.
`record_id`	Yes	15- or 18-character Salesforce record Id.
`object_type`	Yes	Object API name, e.g. Account, Contact, or My_Object__c.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic fetch operation. It does not mention error handling, missing-record behavior, field-level security, or authentication considerations, and no additional context is provided beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and target resource. It is easy to skim and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple, read-only lookup tool with fully documented parameters and safe-operation annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, it does not clarify the return shape or error behavior, and it relies on the agent to infer usage relative to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains record_id, object_type, and fields clearly. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the exact resource ('single Salesforce record by Id'), clearly distinguishing a direct-ID lookup from sibling query/search/list tools. It is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when an agent already has a record Id and needs a single record, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over run_soql_query or search_records, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. This is adequate implied guidance, not explicit routing.

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

Deploy Server