Retrieve the full details of an accounting entry, including all its lines, by providing the unique entry ID. Use it to inspect complete ledger records in Pennylane.
Récupère le détail complet d'une écriture comptable avec toutes ses lignes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant unique de l'écriture comptable. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the response includes all lines of the entry, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior beyond that.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope with zero wasted words.
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 getter with one documented parameter, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by clarifying how it differs from list_entries or get_entry_line, but it does not omit anything essential for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single 'id' parameter clearly documented as the unique identifier of the entry. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Récupère') and resource ('écriture comptable') and clarifies scope by saying it returns the complete detail with all lines. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_entries or get_entry_line, leaving some ambiguity for an agent to resolve from tool names alone.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_entries or get_entry_line. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or context that should trigger its selection over similar siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.