Retrieve a company's profile, plan, and settings, and optionally include plan usage by category to support billing and account reviews.
Dati dell'azienda (anagrafica, piano, impostazioni) e, se richiesto, l'uso del piano per categoria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_id | No | Azienda su cui operare. Default: FIC_COMPANY_ID o l'unica azienda del token | |
| plan_usage | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add what the payload contains and that plan usage is optional, but it says nothing about the default company resolution behavior or the shape of the returned plan-usage breakdown.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and parenthetically lists the returned sections. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical list is slightly compressed and could separate the optional flag more clearly.
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 two-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the definition covers what data comes back and the optional flag. It is adequate but thin: nothing describes the structure of the returned company object or how the default company is resolved when company_id is omitted.
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 50%: company_id is documented in the schema, but plan_usage has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that the flag yields plan usage per category, giving the boolean meaning beyond its name, though it still omits units or granularity of that breakdown.
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 the resource (company data) and enumerates the three domains returned: registry, plan, settings, plus the optional plan usage. It is a clear read operation, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_companies, so an agent must infer that this one returns details for a single company.
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 guidance on when to call this versus list_companies, api_quota, or tax_profile_get. The only conditional hint is 'se richiesto' for plan usage, which is a parameter note rather than a usage rule, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.