Get Fixed Assets
siigo_get_fixed_assetsRetrieve the catalog of fixed assets from Siigo accounting software for asset management and reporting.
Instructions
Get fixed assets catalog
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
siigo_get_fixed_assetsRetrieve the catalog of fixed assets from Siigo accounting software for asset management and reporting.
Get fixed assets catalog
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'catalog' but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, or output specifics.
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 very concise (4 words) and front-loaded with the verb. Every word is meaningful, though a bit more context could improve it without harming conciseness.
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?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, annotations cover safety), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify the output format, whether the catalog is full or paginated, or any scoping details.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.
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 states the action (get) and resource (fixed assets catalog). It is specific and aligns with the tool name, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like siigo_get_products beyond the resource name.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not list prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/crisgon0295/siigo-mcp-ferriperfiles'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server