Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create pending acquisition

create_pending_acquisition

Create a pending acquisition draft that has no ATF effect until committed. Requires a supplier contact; add items later, then commit to record the acquisition.

Instructions

Create a PENDING (uncommitted) acquisition draft. A supplier contact is REQUIRED (contactId, contactExternalId, or inline contact). Has no ATF effect until committed, so it executes directly (no dry-run). Add items with add_acquisition_items, then finalise with commit_acquisition. Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoAcquisition date (ISO). Defaults to now if omitted.
noteNo
typeYesAcquisition type (required). See list_smartlists AcquireType.
itemsNo
accountNoWhich configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
contactNoInline new supplier contact (alternative to contactId).
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.
contactIdNoExisting supplier contact GUID.
externalIdNo
invoiceNumberNo
contactExternalIdNoExisting supplier contact externalId.
purchaseOrderNumberNo
shipmentTrackingNumberNo
isManufacturingAcquisitionNoFFL type 07/10 manufacturing only.

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a write that executes directly, has no ATF effect until committed, and requires no dry-run. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not describe return values or failure modes.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the key concept, state the critical requirement, explain the operational behavior, and close with the workflow. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the tool easy to grasp quickly.

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?

Given a 14-parameter nested input schema and no output schema, the description supplies necessary workflow and contact guidance but omits several contextual details: whether items can be passed in this call or must be added through add_acquisition_items, what the response contains, and what validation or error behavior to expect. This is a complex tool, and the description is somewhat sparse relative to its shape.

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 57%, and the description adds the important semantic that a supplier contact is required via contactId, contactExternalId, or inline contact. However, it does not clarify the relationship between the top-level items array and the instruction to use add_acquisition_items, nor does it fill in the meaning of the many undocumented parameters.

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?

The description specifies a precise verb and resource: 'Create a PENDING (uncommitted) acquisition draft.' It also distinguishes this from the commit step by explicitly noting the draft has no ATF effect until committed, making it clear this is a distinct operation from commit_acquisition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit workflow: add items with add_acquisition_items, then finalise with commit_acquisition. It also warns that a supplier contact is REQUIRED and names the three acceptable forms. It does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling acquire tool, but the pending/committed distinction supplies the key usage context.

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