Retrieve a single vendor record by its vendor ID to support accounts payable workflows such as bill processing and vendor validation.
Fetch one vendor by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendor_id | Yes | Vendor id, e.g. V-01 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does almost nothing with it. It does not say what happens when the vendor id does not exist, whether soft-deleted vendors are returned, what permissions are required, or what shape the response takes — all of which matter for a lookup tool.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its terseness is under-specification rather than disciplined brevity. It is appropriately short, not notably well-structured.
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 trivial one-parameter read with no output schema and a fully documented parameter, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. Given the absence of annotations, though, an agent gets no signal about failure modes or auth, leaving it only barely adequate.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is documented with an example format ('V-01'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline case.
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 (Fetch) and resource (vendor) and constrains it to a single record by id. No sibling tool fetches a vendor, so sibling collision is not a real risk here, but the description never references any sibling to anchor its place in the workflow.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to any alternative such as a search or list tool. The agent must infer that this is the single-record lookup path rather than a query path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.