Generate the FreshBooks consent URL to authorize this connection. After approval, pass the redirect URL to the auth exchange step.
Get the FreshBooks consent URL to authorise this connection. Open it, approve, and you'll land on the redirect URL — pass that whole URL (or just its ?code= value) to freshbooks_auth_exchange. Read-only; contacts nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; contacts nothing.' It also discloses the behavioral flow: open the URL, approve, land on redirect URL, then pass the code to the exchange tool. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotation.
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 three compact sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately explains the necessary follow-up action, making every sentence valuable.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what the user must do, and how to proceed with the result. No critical information is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: obtaining the FreshBooks consent URL for authorizing the connection. It distinguishes this from the sibling auth_exchange tool by explicitly naming it as the next step rather than this tool's function.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: at the start of the authorization flow, before freshbooks_auth_exchange. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the flow guidance is strong and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.