Retrieve full details of a pending received invoice awaiting registration, including a temporary link to its attachment.
Dettaglio completo di una fattura passiva in attesa di registrazione, con link temporaneo all'allegato (attachment_url).
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true is already supplied, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail: the attachment link is temporary ('link temporaneo all'allegato'). That tells an agent the URL must be consumed promptly and not cached. It still says nothing about error behavior when the document is not pending or already registered.
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 distinguishing scope ('in attesa di registrazione') comes first and the attachment_url note is parenthetically appended, so nothing is wasted.
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 read-only getter with one required parameter this is close to adequate, and there is no output schema to compensate. However, the description only promises 'dettaglio completo' plus attachment_url without indicating what the detail contains, and it leaves the id/company_id scoping unexplained, which matters on a tool whose whole point is retrieving one pending document.
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 id has no description at all, and the description never clarifies whether id is the pending-document identifier or the underlying received-document id. The only identifier-like reference in the text, attachment_url, is an output field, not a parameter, so the coverage gap is left entirely unaddressed.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Dettaglio completo di una fattura passiva in attesa di registrazione'. The qualifier 'in attesa di registrazione' clearly separates it from list_pending_received_documents and register_pending_received_documents, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from get_received_document, which presumably returns similar detail for non-pending documents.
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 by the phrase 'in attesa di registrazione' — an agent can infer this is the detail lookup to call before registering a pending invoice. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_received_document, list_pending_received_documents).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.