Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent-mcp-server

by samaxbytez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

freeagent_get_contact

Read-only

Retrieve a single FreeAgent contact by contact ID, returning the contact's details for accounting and CRM workflows.

Instructions

Get a single contact 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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_get_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contact_idYesThe ID of the contact 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

B3.2/5.0
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. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral — no indication of error behavior when the ID is missing, what fields a contact carries, or any auth/rate considerations.

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 tight sentence with the key qualifiers front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and behavioral detail.

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 single-parameter read tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations and whose parameter is covered by the schema, the definition is barely sufficient. It omits any mention of not-found behavior or returned contact shape, leaving an agent to infer them.

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 contact_id parameter is fully documented with a pattern. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus resource 'contact' and the qualifier 'single ... by ID', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling freeagent_list_contacts. It does not explicitly name the list/update/delete alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch one contact when you have its ID. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over freeagent_list_contacts, freeagent_update_contact, or what to do if 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

Other Tools