Uploads a local file as an attachment and returns its attachment_token; use the token with update_* to link the file to a document or tax record.
Carica un file locale come allegato e restituisce l'attachment_token. Poi collegalo con update_* passando { attachment_token }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | No | issued_documents | |
| file_path | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return value (attachment_token) and that the file is stored then referenced, but says nothing about size/format limits, permissions, error behavior, or whether an unused upload is orphaned or garbage-collected.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned token, with zero wasted wording.
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?
Covers the core action, return value and follow-up step for a simple 3-parameter tool. It is incomplete on the resource enum semantics and on upload constraints, which matter for correct invocation given there are no annotations or output schema to fall back on.
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 33% – only company_id is documented. The description hints at file_path ('file locale') but never explains the 'resource' parameter, whose four enum values determine which document type the attachment binds to; that meaning is absent from both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource in Italian ('Carica un file locale come allegato') plus the return value (attachment_token). It also distinguishes itself from the update_* sibling family by positioning itself as a prerequisite step, not a mutation of document data.
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?
Explicitly prescribes the two-step workflow: upload first, then link the token via update_* passing { attachment_token }. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., attaching to a not-yet-created document) or which specific update_* tool to pick for each resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.