Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BeeL MCP server

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_product

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a single product from a company's catalog by its UUID, using the company ID to resolve the account context. Returns a not-found error if the product does not exist or belongs to another company.

Instructions

Retrieves one product of the catalog of this company. A product of another company answers 404 with PRODUCT_NOT_FOUND, exactly like one that does not exist or was deleted.

BeeL API endpoint: GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/products/{product_id} (reference: https://docs.beel.es)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company_id": "<company_id>",
      "product_id": "<product_id>"
    },
    "name": "beel_get_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed.
product_idYesProduct unique UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / company_id / description
      Previous value: -"NIF (company) the operation acts on. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A NIF you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a NIF that does not exist, so the existence of a NIF in another account is never disclosed."New value: +"Unique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the error contract: a product belonging to another company returns 404 PRODUCT_NOT_FOUND, identical to a nonexistent or deleted product, which tells the agent it cannot distinguish those cases. It stops short of describing the returned payload.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences followed by endpoint/API reference, all front-loaded with the core action first and the error nuance second. No filler; the docs URL line is marginally supplementary but legitimately useful for an API-backed tool.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description never sketches what a product record contains, so the agent cannot anticipate the returned fields.

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% and company_id already carries a very detailed description of its scoping and 403 semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The endpoint line maps both parameters to path placeholders, but adds no new semantic constraints beyond what the schema states.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves one product of the catalog') and the word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling beel_list_products. However, it never names list_products or the other product siblings (create/patch/delete) explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred rather than read.

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 only implied: fetching a single product by its UUID. There is no explicit 'use beel_list_products to discover the product_id first' or any statement about when to prefer this over the list tool, so the agent must infer the routing. The cross-company 404 note is helpful behavioral context but not usage guidance.

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