Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Set item acquisition contact

set_item_acquisition_contact
Idempotent

Assign a source contact to an item in FastBound to record who supplied it, with an immediate ATF audit trail update.

Instructions

Set the acquisition (source) contact on an item. Executes directly. Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFastBound GUID of the item.
accountNoWhich configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
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.
contactIdYesGUID of the acquisition/source contact.

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Executes directly' and 'Write', which provide some behavioral context beyond annotations — indicating immediate execution and mutation. However, it does not explain outcomes such as overwriting existing contacts or response format. With annotations covering safety, this modest additional context earns a 3.

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 a single declarative sentence: 'Set the acquisition (source) contact on an item. Executes directly. Write.' It is extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place, and it is adequately structured for quick scanning.

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 simple mutation tool with 4 parameters (schema-covered), no output schema, and clear scoping via 'on an item', the description is reasonably complete. It does not explicitly address return values, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation. It could be slightly more complete by naming the sibling for contrast, but it does not leave critical gaps.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Per the calibration rule, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description does not reduce clarity, but it also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'acquisition (source) contact on an item', which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'attach_acquisition_contact', even though the phrase 'on an item' implies item-level scope rather than acquisition-level. It's not a tautology and is a distinct operation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attach_acquisition_contact'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only hint is 'on an item' which implies item-level usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use instruction. This falls short of the 3 baseline for clear context without exclusions.

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