Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Commit acquisition

commit_acquisition

Finalize a pending acquisition into the A&D book. Dry-run returns a preview; set confirm to true to execute the irrevocable commit.

Instructions

Commit a pending acquisition to the A&D book — the point of no return. Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true to commit. Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesGUID of the pending acquisition to commit.
accountNoWhich configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
confirmNoSet true to actually execute. Omit or false returns a DRY RUN preview that sends nothing.
auditUserNoEmail recorded as X-AuditUser for the ATF audit trail. Overrides FASTBOUND_AUDIT_USER for this call. Must be an active user on the account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes well beyond the minimal destructiveHint=false annotation by revealing that the call is a write, is irreversible ('point of no return'), and—critically—does nothing by default, requiring confirm:true to execute. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know before calling. It does not detail post-commit side effects, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose and the most important safety behavior ('dry-run by default', 'confirm:true') front-loaded. No fluff or repeated schema content.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the key usage context: what it commits, that it is irreversible, and how to make it actually run. It could mention the expected return value or prerequisite state of the acquisition, but these gaps are minor given the excellent schema coverage.

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 fully documents id, account, confirm, and auditUser. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it merely restates the confirm semantics that the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Commit'), an unambiguous object ('a pending acquisition'), and the destination ('the A&D book'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as commit_disposition and create_pending_acquisition, even without naming them.

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?

The phrase 'commit a pending acquisition to the A&D book' implies it should be used when finalizing an already-created pending acquisition, and the dry-run warning clarifies how to invoke. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of update_acquisition, delete_acquisition, or create_pending_acquisition, nor when not to use it.

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