siigo_get_product
Retrieve product details from Siigo accounting software using a product ID to access specific item information.
Instructions
Get a specific product by ID
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product ID |
Retrieve product details from Siigo accounting software using a product ID to access specific item information.
Get a specific product by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation by an agent.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is used to identify a product, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific product'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from the sibling 'siigo_get_products' by specifying retrieval of a single item by ID, though it doesn't explicitly mention this 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'siigo_get_products' for listing multiple products or other get_* tools for different resources. The description only states what it does, not when it's 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/jdlar1/siigo-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server