Fetch a file from IS MUNI by URL, returning text content for text files or a local path for binary files. Automatically converts documents to text when possible.
Stáhne soubor z IS. Textové soubory vrátí jako text; binární uloží do ISMU_DOWNLOAD_DIR a vrátí cestu. Pro prezentace/dokumenty automaticky zkusí i automaticky generovanou .txt verzi (zkus_txt).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| zkus_txt | No | ||
| max_znaku | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important side effects: text vs binary handling, the download destination directory, and the automatic attempt to get a generated .txt version. It does not mention possible truncation or side effects of max_znaku, but the main 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences deliver the main action, return behavior, and a key parameter hint without filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
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?
The description covers return values well because there is no output schema, and it explains the binary save path. However, max_znaku behavior is missing and there are no annotations or output schema details to fill that gap, so the definition is not fully complete for an agent.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains zkus_txt explicitly, and url is implied by 'soubor z IS', but max_znaku is entirely unexplained, including what happens when the limit is reached. This is a meaningful gap for one of the three parameters.
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?
The description identifies a specific action and resource ('Stáhne soubor z IS') and clearly distinguishes two modes: text files returned as text, binary files saved to ISMU_DOWNLOAD_DIR and returning a path. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like soubory_vypis, but the behavior makes the tool's role clear.
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 usage context is clear: use this tool when you need to download/read a file from IS and get content or a saved path. It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but the behavioral rules give enough context for typical selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.