Retrieve a Billy record by resource and ID, optionally loading linked relationships. Use verbose mode for full sanitized details when needed.
Read a Billy record and optionally sideload relationships. Default response is compact; verbose returns sanitized detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| include | No | ||
| verbose | No | ||
| resource | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / resource / enumPrevious value: -[
- "accounts",
- "contacts",
- "invoices",
- "products",
- "bills",
- "bankPayments",
- "bankLines",
- "bankLineMatches",
- "bankLineSubjectAssociations",
- "daybooks",
- "daybookTransactions",
- "postings",
- "taxRates",
- "attachments",
- "files",
- "salesTaxReturns",
- "transactions"
-]New value: +[
+ "accounts",
+ "accountGroups",
+ "accountNatures",
+ "contacts",
+ "contactPersons",
+ "invoices",
+ "products",
+ "bills",
+ "bankPayments",
+ "bankLines",
+ "bankLineMatches",
+ "bankLineSubjectAssociations",
+ "daybooks",
+ "daybookTransactions",
+ "postings",
+ "taxRates",
+ "salesTaxRulesets",
+ "attachments",
+ "files",
+ "salesTaxReturns",
+ "transactions"
+]Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: default compact responses, verbose mode returning sanitized detail, and optional relationship sideloading. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the optional behaviors are stated efficiently.
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 simple get-by-id tool, the description covers the main behaviors: reading, sideloading, and response verbosity. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the compact/verbose distinction, though specific return fields are not described.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify 'include' as relationship sideloading and 'verbose' as compact vs sanitized detail, but it does not describe the resource or id parameters beyond what their names and patterns imply.
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?
Description names a specific verb ('Read') and a resource ('a Billy record'), and the singular framing distinguishes it from billy_list. It does not explicitly mention 'by id', though the required id parameter makes this inferable.
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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings like billy_list or billy_batch_get. The context is implied by the singular 'record', but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.