freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent_get_bill

Read-only

Retrieve a single bill from FreeAgent by ID to view its details for auditing, reconciliation, or reference.

Instructions

Get a single bill 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": {
      "bill_id": "<bill_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_get_bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bill_id`	Yes	The ID of the bill to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what happens when the ID does not exist, whether the lookup is scoped to the authenticated company, or what the returned bill representation includes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and readOnly annotations and no output schema, this is minimally sufficient. It leaves an agent without guidance on error behavior for invalid or missing IDs and without a hint of what fields a bill returns.

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 bill_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its pattern. The description's "by ID" phrasing adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get a single bill") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), and the singular/plural wording implicitly separates it from freeagent_list_bills. It stops short of naming that sibling or describing what a bill record contains, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a bill ID and wants one record rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of freeagent_list_bills as the alternative for discovery, and no note about what to do when the ID is unknown.

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

Deploy Server