Retrieves complete details of a specific Italian F24 tax payment model by ID, optionally within a given company context.
Dettaglio completo di un modello F24.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| company_id | No | Azienda su cui operare. Default: FIC_COMPANY_ID o l'unica azienda del token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only 'complete detail' and says nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, or what data is included beyond the record itself.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important details unstated.
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 description still lacks the required identifier semantics and any indication of when to use this versus list_f24. It is under-specified for the two-parameter schema and gives no return-shape context, though no output schema exists.
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 only 50%: company_id is documented in the schema, but the required id parameter has no description. The tool description mentions neither parameter, so it does not compensate for the missing id semantics.
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 the resource (F24) and indicates a single-record detail retrieval, which distinguishes it from list_f24. The verb is implicit rather than stated, but the purpose is still 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?
It gives no explicit guidance on when to use get_f24 instead of list_f24 or other F24 siblings. At best, 'dettaglio completo' implies looking up details after identifying a record, but this is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.