Download the FatturaPA XML for a specific invoice document; optionally save it to a file or folder, otherwise receive the XML directly.
Scarica l'XML FatturaPA di un documento. Con save_to lo salva su file (percorso o cartella), altrimenti lo restituisce.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| save_to | No | ||
| company_id | No | Azienda su cui operare. Default: FIC_COMPANY_ID o l'unica azienda del token | |
| include_attachment | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description — no API resource is mutated, and the description discloses the two output modes (save to file vs return in response). However, it does not clarify that save_to causes a local filesystem write, nor what the returned content looks like (raw string, base64, size) when save_to is omitted.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the core action first, then the branching behavior of save_to. Every clause carries information.
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 retrieval tool the essentials are present, and the return-vs-save behavior is spelled out despite there being no output schema. The gaps — semantics of include_attachment and the exact shape of the returned XML — keep it from being complete.
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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain save_to's dual meaning (file path or folder), which the bare schema does not, but leaves include_attachment and the meaning of id (document identifier, presumably) entirely undocumented in both places.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Scarica l'XML FatturaPA di un documento' (downloads the FatturaPA XML of a document). This clearly separates it from the get_document_pdf sibling, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
It gives a concrete usage rule for one branch: with save_to it writes to disk (path or folder), otherwise it returns the XML. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_document_pdf, send_einvoice, or verify_einvoice, so context selection is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.