Skip to main content
Glama
freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent-mcp-server

by samaxbytez

freeagent_get_bank_transaction

Read-only

Retrieve a single FreeAgent bank transaction by ID to review transaction details, reconcile banking records, or verify a specific entry.

Instructions

Get a single bank transaction from FreeAgent by ID

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bank_transaction_id": "<bank_transaction_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_get_bank_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bank_transaction_idYesThe ID of the bank transaction to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating, closed-domain read. The description adds only that the lookup is by ID and nothing about what happens when the ID is unknown or invalid, so it contributes modest context beyond the annotations.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read with full annotation and schema coverage, the definition is callable as written. However, with no output schema present, the description gives no indication of what a returned bank transaction contains, leaving that gap unfilled.

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% and the single parameter carries its own description and pattern constraint, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by ID' restates rather than extends that meaning; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single bank transaction') scoped to one record by ID, which distinguishes it implicitly from the sibling freeagent_list_bank_transactions. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by ID' implies this is the lookup path once an ID is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no referral to freeagent_list_bank_transactions for discovery. Usage is left to inference from the name and shape.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools