ogarniai_get_document_imageRetrieve the scanned image of a purchase receipt by providing its document ID. Returns the image as base64-encoded data.
Get the scanned image of a purchase document (receipt photo).
Args:
id (string): Document ID (UUID format)
Returns: The receipt/document image as base64-encoded data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID (UUID format) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is base64-encoded image data, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like potential size limits, whether the image is a thumbnail or full-resolution, or error behavior for missing documents.
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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is clear and scannable. Minor redundancy: the id description in Args duplicates the schema's description, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It states the input and the return format (base64). However, it doesn't mention what the image represents beyond 'receipt photo' (e.g., whether it's the original scan or a processed version), and there's no output schema to clarify the response structure. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 100%: the schema already documents the id parameter as 'Resource ID (UUID format)' with format and pattern constraints. The description repeats the id parameter with the same meaning, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the scanned image of a purchase document (receipt photo), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like ogarniai_get_document (which likely returns document metadata/data) by specifying 'image' and 'receipt photo', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from.
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 description implies usage: call this when you need the scanned image of a document. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs ogarniai_get_document or other siblings, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.