get_supplierRetrieve one supplier's full Fortnox record, including bank details, by supplier number. Use it to verify supplier payment and contact data before processing invoices.
One supplier in full, including bank details as registered in Fortnox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplier_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful disclosure — that bank details are returned — but says nothing about not-found behavior or what the rest of the 'full' payload contains.
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?
A single short sentence with the scope claim front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though almost too terse given the gap left in parameter and usage guidance.
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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety and with no output schema, the minimum is met. Still missing: how to obtain a valid supplier_number and what happens when it does not resolve.
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 coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about supplier_number — not its format, source, or whether it matches the identifier used in list_suppliers. The name is self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate for the documented 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: retrieves a single supplier 'in full'. The word 'One' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_suppliers, though no sibling is named, so an agent must still infer the boundary itself.
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 routing between this tool and list_suppliers or get_supplier_invoice, both of which return overlapping supplier data. The description assumes the agent already knows which lookup tool to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.