loyverse_get_supplierRetrieve a supplier's details by its unique ID. Use this to access specific supplier information directly from your Loyverse account.
Fetch one supplier by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplier_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description simply restates the operation ('Fetch') and adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose error cases, response format, or any edge behavior, so it adds minimal value beyond the annotations.
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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it may be too terse, it earns its place as an efficient statement.
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 of the tool (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic invocation but omits expected return value or error behavior. An agent can likely infer that it returns a supplier object, but it is not explicitly stated.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It does clarify that supplier_id is the identifier ('by id'), but provides no format, constraints, or additional meaning. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema detail.
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 clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('supplier') with a specific scope ('one... by id'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling get tools (e.g., get_receipt, get_store) beyond the resource name, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
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 on when to use this tool versus list_suppliers or other get tools. The usage is implied (when you need a single supplier by ID), but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.