Skip to main content
Glama
Zeekeey-jpeg

singleops-mcp-server

by Zeekeey-jpeg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get visit by id

singleops_read_get_visit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a SingleOps visit record by ID to access scheduling, cost, invoice, and status details for reporting or workflow validation.

Instructions

Get visit by id. (GET /visits/{id}.json) Inferred from the SingleOps web app's own traffic; confirm results. Returns JSON with keys: id, account_id, job_id, location_id, all_day, start, created_at, updated_at, is_archived, stop, name, visit_stage_id, account_reference_number, qb_list_id, cogs_cost, expenses_cost, actual_total_gross_margin, actual_total_gross_margin_percentage, approved_at, total_price, total_cost, auto_scheduled, last_recalced_at, map_cache, invoice_id, token, exclude_from_ref_num, estimated_workers, exclude_from_calendar, proposal_accepted_by, proposal_accepted_at, custom_invoice_date, is_template_visit, rejected_automatically, accepted_by_ip_address, is_pickup, route_num, lead_converted_at, lead_converted_by_id, initial_visit_stage_id.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPath parameter {id} (record id).
extra_queryNoAny additional query parameters.
response_formatNoOutput format: "markdown" (default, readable tables) or "json" (full raw response).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful caveat that the endpoint was inferred from traffic and results should be confirmed, plus it enumerates returned JSON keys. It does not cover error or auth behavior, but it adds useful context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose, endpoint, and reliability caveat are front-loaded, which is good. However, the long unformatted enumeration of return keys is unwieldy and would be better represented as an output schema; it is useful but not concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, reliability caveat, and return fields. It does not explain error cases such as a missing record, but it is otherwise complete enough for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents id, extra_query, and response_format. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get visit by id', and supplies the exact HTTP endpoint. The 'by id' phrasing distinguishes it from the many sibling list/search visit tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'by id' and the endpoint, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling search/list visit tools. An agent can infer it is for direct lookup, but alternatives are not named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools