Download prospect file. Redirects to a 5-minute signed URL. Pass ?redirect=false to get the URL as JSON instead. Retrieves data without changing records or spending credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent status, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: a 5-minute signed URL and the redirect-vs-JSON response mode, which are exactly the operational details an agent needs. Error behavior (missing file, expired URL handling) is not covered, keeping it below 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and tight at four short sentences. The final sentence about not changing records or spending credits largely repeats the readOnly annotations, which is mildly redundant but still useful reassurance.
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-only download tool with no output schema, the description covers the key calling modes (redirect vs JSON) and URL expiry. Missing only edge behavior such as not-found or expired-URL handling.
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 0% at the parameter level, though nested `id` and `file_id` have examples and descriptions. The description only clarifies the `redirect` query parameter by showing `?redirect=false` yields JSON; it does not state the default behavior explicitly or explain the `path`/`id`/`file_id` structure, so compensation is partial.
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 and resource — “Download prospect file” — which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling `get_prospects_id_files` (listing files) and `delete_prospects_id_files_file_id`. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
The download context is clear and the `redirect=false` guidance tells the agent how to request a JSON URL rather than a redirect. It does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of the file-listing tool, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
