simpleinout-mcp

simpleinout_get_current_company

Retrieve the current company's details from Simple In/Out. Optionally use expand to include related resources.

Instructions

Retrieve the current company.

    API: GET /companies/my

    Args:
        expand: Optional comma-separated list of related resources to embed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "simpleinout_get_current_company"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`expand`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and API endpoint, implying a safe read operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no company exists. The GET path adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The API reference and parameter explanation are minimal and directly relevant, with no unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the single parameter, presence of an output schema, and absence of annotations, the description provides enough context for a basic retrieval tool. It clearly identifies the resource and parameter, though it could be enhanced with usage scenarios or notes on the return value beyond what the output schema presumably covers.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: 'Optional comma-separated list of related resources to embed' clarifies the expand parameter's purpose and format. This is a strong compensation beyond the bare schema definition.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve the current company' with a specific verb and resource. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users or get_current_user, making the tool's purpose immediately apparent.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The usage is implied by the 'current company' phrasing, but no explicit guidance or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server