billingo_get_bank_accountRetrieve a single bank account from Billingo by its unique ID. Use this to fetch account details such as bank name, account number, and currency for invoicing and reconciliation.
Returns a single bank account by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bank account id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| swift | No | ||
| need_qr | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| account_number | No | ||
| account_number_iban | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "account_number": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "account_number_iban": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "currency": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "need_qr": {
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "swift": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own - no indication of what happens for an unknown id (error vs empty) or how missing records surface.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, and the resource and keying mechanism are front-loaded.
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?
For a trivial single-record getter with rich annotations, full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The only gap is error/not-found behavior for an invalid id.
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 coverage is 100% with a single documented 'id' parameter ('Bank account id.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates that lookup is by id and adds nothing about format or validity constraints.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Returns a single bank account by id.' The singular 'single...by id' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling billingo_list_bank_accounts, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by id' signals you need a known identifier, which steers agents toward list_bank_accounts first when they don't. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.