Retrieve a single Accelo expense by ID and optionally include additional fields for reporting, auditing, or expense tracking in MCP-compatible assistants.
Get a single expense by ID.
Args: id: Expense 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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, what happens for an invalid/unknown ID, or whether the read has side effects. It only reiterates that lookup is by ID, which is already implied by the required parameter.
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?
Short, front-loaded, and well organized with a clear one-line summary followed by an Args block. Every line is relevant, though the docstring-style formatting is slightly verbose for two trivial parameters.
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 single-record getter this covers the essentials, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about return shape, missing-record behavior, and the meaning of 'fields'. Minimum viable rather than complete.
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 description must compensate, and it does document both parameters ('id: Expense ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return'). However, the 'fields' explanation is vague about syntax or how to specify multiple fields, leaving a real gap.
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 expense by ID'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with siblings like accelo_list_expenses and accelo_count_expenses. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this versus accelo_list_expenses or accelo_count_expenses, and no preconditions or error behavior mentioned. The usage is only inferable from the name and the 'by ID' phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.