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

freeagent-mcp-server

by samaxbytez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

freeagent_get_credit_note

Read-only

Retrieve a FreeAgent credit note by ID to inspect its details and support accounting workflows.

Instructions

Get a single credit note 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": {
      "credit_note_id": "<credit_note_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_get_credit_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
credit_note_idYesThe ID of the credit note 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

A3.6/5.0
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 safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior when the ID does not exist, no permission scope, no error semantics. Adequate for a trivial read, but adds no value over the structured fields.

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, zero padding, with the resource and lookup key front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema required, this is close to sufficient. The only minor gap is that it says nothing about what a credit note object contains or what happens on a missing/invalid ID, but the tool's simplicity makes that a small omission.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("The ID of the credit note to retrieve") plus a regex pattern constraint. The description's "by ID" merely restates the schema, so the baseline of 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?

"Get a single credit note from FreeAgent by ID" names a specific verb (get), a specific resource (credit note), and the lookup key (ID). The word "single" distinguishes it from the sibling freeagent_list_credit_notes, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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: "single ... by ID" suggests it should be used when a specific credit note identifier is already known, as opposed to listing. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the related update/delete siblings.

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