Retrieve complete details of a daily receipt or ticket by ID, optionally for a specific company, to inspect and reconcile e-invoicing records.
Dettaglio completo di un corrispettivo (scontrino / ricevuta giornaliera).
| 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response is the "complete detail" of the entity, but says nothing about not-found behavior, permission/company scoping effects, or what "complete" includes. With annotations carrying the read-only signal, this is adequate but thin.
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 short sentence with the resource identified up front and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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 two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to tell an agent this fetches one receipt's full detail. It leaves the undefined required id and the meaning of "complete detail" unaddressed, which matters given only 50% schema coverage.
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 50%: company_id is documented with a default-resolution rule, but the required id is bare (integer, no description). The description adds no meaning about what id identifies or how company_id interacts with the lookup, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a clear verb-noun sense ("Dettaglio completo" = full detail of) and a specific resource, clarified with synonyms (corrispettivo / scontrino / ricevuta giornaliera). The word "dettaglio" combined with the singular resource implies a single-record fetch, which implicitly separates it from list_receipts, 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_receipts for searching or get_received_document for supplier invoices. The usage (fetch one record by id) is only implied by the verb and the required id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.