Skip to main content
Glama
jdlar1

Siigo MCP Server

by jdlar1

siigo_get_customers

Retrieve customer lists from Siigo accounting software with pagination and filtering options to manage client data efficiently.

Instructions

Get list of customers from Siigo

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
page_sizeNoNumber of items per page
typeNoCustomer type filter

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that performs the API call to retrieve customers from Siigo (/v1/customers) using the makeRequest helper.
    async getCustomers(params?: { page?: number; page_size?: number; type?: string }): Promise<SiigoApiResponse<SiigoCustomer>> {
      return this.makeRequest<SiigoCustomer>('GET', '/v1/customers', undefined, params);
    }
  • MCP server wrapper handler that calls SiigoClient.getCustomers and formats the response.
    private async handleGetCustomers(args: any) {
      const result = await this.siigoClient.getCustomers(args);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition including input parameters for pagination and filtering.
    {
      name: 'siigo_get_customers',
      description: 'Get list of customers from Siigo',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          page: { type: 'number', description: 'Page number' },
          page_size: { type: 'number', description: 'Number of items per page' },
          type: { type: 'string', description: 'Customer type filter' },
        },
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:73-74 (registration)
    Dispatch case in the main CallToolRequestSchema handler that routes to the tool handler.
    case 'siigo_get_customers':
      return await this.handleGetCustomers(args);
  • Helper method that handles authentication, makes the Axios request to Siigo API, and processes responses/errors.
    private async makeRequest<T>(method: string, endpoint: string, data?: any, params?: any): Promise<SiigoApiResponse<T>> {
      await this.authenticate();
    
      try {
        const response: AxiosResponse<SiigoApiResponse<T>> = await this.httpClient.request({
          method,
          url: endpoint,
          data,
          params,
        });
    
        return response.data;
      } catch (error: any) {
        if (error.response?.data) {
          return error.response.data;
        }
        throw new Error(`API request failed: ${error.message}`);
      }
    }
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 states 'Get list' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, return format, or error handling, which are crucial for a list-retrieval tool. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters (page, page_size, type). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 list of customers from Siigo' clearly states the action (get) and resource (customers), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like siigo_get_customer (singular) or other list tools. It's functional but lacks specificity about scope or format.

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. With siblings like siigo_get_customer (singular) and siigo_update_customer, the description doesn't indicate if this is for bulk retrieval, filtering, or initial exploration, leaving usage ambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jdlar1/siigo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server