Skip to main content
Glama
ssservicios

mcp-ispkeeper

by ssservicios
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_client_services

Retrieve a client's services across invoices, collections, tickets, additionals, internet/TV/phone connections, and subscriptions. Specify client ID and service type to get the relevant data.

Instructions

Get services for a specific client: invoices, collections, tickets, additionals, internet/TV/phone connections, or subscriptions. ⚠️ NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (connections and subscriptions only)
serviceYesType of service/data to retrieve
per_pageNoResults per page (connections and subscriptions only)
client_idYesClient ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / page
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Page number (connections and subscriptions only)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / per_page
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Results per page (connections and subscriptions only)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / service / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "invoices",
-  "collections",
-  "tickets",
-  "additionals"
-]New value: +[
+  "invoices",
+  "collections",
+  "tickets",
+  "additionals",
+  "internet_connections",
+  "tv_connections",
+  "phone_connections",
+  "subscriptions"
+]
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds a warning about not fabricating data if the tool fails, which is an agent instruction rather than a behavioral trait. It does not disclose read-only behavior, pagination behavior, failure modes, or response characteristics.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the failure-handling warning is concise and memorable.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not explain return value shape, pagination behavior, or when to choose this tool over the many list/get siblings, leaving an agent to infer critical usage context.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters and the service enum. The description's list of service types largely mirrors the enum and adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('services for a specific client') while enumerating the supported service types. It is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling list/get tools such as list_invoices or get_internet_connection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools like list_invoices, list_collections, or get_ticket. The description implies the tool covers multiple service types, but it never states when an agent should prefer this aggregator over a more specific sibling.

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