Retrieve a contract by ID from Accelo CRM, optionally specifying additional fields to return.
Get a single contract by ID.
Args: id: Contract ID fields: Additional fields to return
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read but says nothing about permissions, whether a missing ID errors or returns empty, or rate limits.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler; the Args block is terse. Nothing needs to be cut.
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?
A simple getter, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate for the return shape and ID semantics and does not.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing. The description restates the parameter names ('id: Contract ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return') without adding format, expected values, or any guidance on what 'additional fields' means.
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+resource: 'Get a single contract by ID.' The 'single' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling accelo_list_contracts, though no sibling is named.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer accelo_list_contracts or how to obtain a valid ID. Usage is only inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.