Retrieve a single tax code by ID from Accelo CRM, with optional fields to include in the response.
Get a single tax code by ID.
Args: id: Tax 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. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions, error behavior for an unknown ID, or what the response contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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?
Very short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence precedes the Args block, with no filler. The Args formatting is slightly redundant given the schema, but costs little.
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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: it identifies the resource and key. It falls short on the 'fields' parameter semantics and on any behavioral context, which nothing else in the metadata supplies.
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. It does name both parameters ('id: Tax ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return'), which adds meaning over bare titles, but 'fields' gives no format or syntax (comma-separated list? array?), leaving the agent guessing.
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 tax code by ID.' The word 'single' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_taxes/count_taxes, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts the scope.
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 prerequisites, and no reference to accelo_list_taxes or accelo_count_taxes as alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the point-lookup variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.