Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Siigo MCP Server

Siigo MCP Server

by jdlar1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

siigo_get_cost_centers

Retrieve the catalog of cost centers from Siigo accounting software to organize and track business expenses by department or project.

Instructions

Get cost centers catalog

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "siigo_get_cost_centers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get cost centers catalog') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'catalog' entails (e.g., list format, fields returned) and behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get cost centers catalog' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('cost centers catalog'), but it's vague about scope—does it list all cost centers, filter them, or retrieve a specific one? It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cost centers, but lacks specificity compared to more detailed sibling descriptions like 'siigo_get_invoice_pdf'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to differentiate from similar 'get' tools like 'siigo_get_accounts_payable' or 'siigo_get_trial_balance' beyond the resource name.

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