Retrieve a specific client's details by providing its unique ID. This returns the client record from Gorelo PSA, enabling you to verify information or use it in your workflow.
Get a single client by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without mentioning potential errors (e.g., 404 if not found), authentication requirements, response format, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it). No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the basic action, leaving the agent to assume typical get-by-id semantics.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is zero extraneous wording, and it conveys the essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id operation.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks any information about error handling, response structure, or what constitutes a 'client' object. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, an agent might need more context to fully interpret the result, but the description is adequate for a basic read operation. The missing details lower completeness but not to a critical level.
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 schema describes a single parameter 'id' of type number with no description (0% coverage). The description says 'by id' but does not clarify that this is the client's unique identifier, nor does it explain the format or any constraints. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name, and with 0% schema coverage, the description should have provided more context about the id.
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 clearly states the action (get) and the resource (a single client) with a specific identifier (by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gorelo_list_clients, which lists multiple clients, and gorelo_get_contact, which targets contacts. The phrase 'single client' makes the scope explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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. It does not mention that this is the appropriate choice when you have a client ID and need one client's details, nor does it reference gorelo_list_clients for retrieving all clients. An agent must infer usage from the name and siblings, which is not sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.