Fetch a specific FreshBooks expense by its numeric ID to view its details and verify transactions.
Get a single expense by its numeric id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Expense id |
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"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming this is a read operation. It adds little beyond the annotation, though it does clarify that exactly one expense is returned rather than a collection.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant explanation. It earns its place by stating the core operation and key parameter characteristic.
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-only getter with the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks an explicit mention of the return payload, but the tool name and wording make the returned resource obvious.
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 input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with description, type, and constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'numeric id' adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('a single expense'), and the lookup key ('numeric id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like freshbooks_list_expenses and freshbooks_create_expense.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as freshbooks_list_expenses or freshbooks_get_expense related flows. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or how an agent might obtain the id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.