Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MYOB Codex MCP

MYOB Codex MCP

by jaeko44
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

myob_entity_get

Retrieve a specific MYOB record by entity and UID. Include layout to get full invoice, bill, or order details.

Instructions

Get one MYOB record by entity and UID. layout is needed for some invoice/bill/order details.

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": {
      "entity": "<entity>",
      "uid": "<uid>"
    },
    "name": "myob_entity_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYes
entityYes
layoutNo
business_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a useful behavioral nuance about layout being needed for some details, but does not mention read-only behavior, errors, or business context requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two clear, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action; the second adds a specific caveat. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits business_id semantics, valid entity values, and what 'layout' actually returns, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains layout's purpose and implies entity/uid from names, but business_id is left entirely unexplained, making the compensation partial.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Get one MYOB record by entity and UID' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list/raw tools by emphasizing one record retrieval and the layout caveat for invoice/bill/order details.

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?

The layout note implies usage for invoice/bill/order details, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus specific getters like myob_invoice_get. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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