Retrieve detailed information for a specific borderou transaction by ID, including matched invoice and proforma details, to verify or reconcile e-invoicing records.
Get detailed information about a specific borderou transaction including matched invoice/proforma details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Transaction ID | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID override (uses active company if not set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, so the description needn't cover safety. It does add useful response context by mentioning matched invoice/proforma details, but says nothing about error behavior, missing records, or company scoping effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple getter, though it could spend one more clause on the companyId override or return shape without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The one gap is not explaining how the companyId override affects resolution, but that is minor given the schema documents it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the required id and optional companyId override are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a specific borderou transaction), and adds that it returns matched invoice/proforma details. The word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling borderou_transactions, though no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching one transaction by ID versus the list tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.