Retrieve complete details of an issued document by ID, including invoices, credit notes, proformas, quotes, orders, and DDTs, to inspect or verify its data.
Dettaglio completo di un documento emesso (fattura, nota di credito, proforma, preventivo, ordine, DDT...).
| 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?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, so the description is not obliged to restate safety. Beyond that it discloses nothing behavioral: not what the "complete detail" includes (line items, totals, attachments, e-invoice status), not what happens on a missing or foreign id, and not the company-scoping fallback behavior implied by company_id.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical type list earns its place by defining scope. It stops at adequate rather than exemplary because the enumeration consumes most of the sentence while the actionable guidance stays absent.
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 tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), and the annotation covers the safety profile, so the description needs only to identify the resource and its record types, which it does. The remaining gap is that an agent cannot tell what fields the "dettaglio completo" response will contain before calling.
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 with its default resolution rule, while id has no schema description at all. The description only indirectly clarifies that id refers to an issued document, without saying whether it is an internal numeric id rather than the visible document number, so it partially compensates but leaves a real ambiguity.
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?
"Dettaglio completo di un documento emesso" supplies a clear verb (retrieve full detail) and a well-scoped resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the document types it covers (fattura, nota di credito, proforma, preventivo, ordine, DDT). The "emesso" qualifier implicitly separates it from get_received_document and get_archive_document, but no sibling is named 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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the single-record fetch for issued documents, presumably after list_issued_documents. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to do when the id is unknown, and no exclusion of alternatives such as get_document_pdf or get_einvoice_xml.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.