billingo_get_partnerFetch a single partner's complete record using its ID. Get the partner details required for creating invoices or updating customer information.
Returns a single partner by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Partner id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds only the cardinality ('a single') and the lookup mechanism, but it does not disclose not-found behavior, error handling, or response shape beyond what annotations and schema imply.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. Every word earns its place for such a simple getter tool.
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 tool with one required parameter and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit not-found/error behavior and the exact shape of the returned partner object, but these are not critical for correctly selecting and invoking this simple getter.
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%: the id parameter is already described as 'Partner id.' The tool description simply says 'by id,' which adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb ('returns'), a clear resource ('a single partner'), and the lookup key ('by id'). This distinguishes it from plural/list siblings like billingo_list_partners and from other get_* tools.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used when a specific partner id is already known, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The presence of billingo_list_partners as a sibling makes the lack of explicit routing guidance a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.