Retrieve metadata for a single Rentvine file by file ID, including name, size, MIME type, and attachment details. Use this to identify file properties before downloading actual content.
Get metadata for a single Rentvine file by file_id (live data, read). Returns name, size, mime type, and attachment info — but not file contents. Use download_file to fetch the actual bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | Rentvine fileID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that this is a 'live data, read' operation, explicitly mentioning 'read' and that it returns metadata but not contents. This effectively discloses the behavioral trait of being a non-destructive read operation, which is sufficient given the simplicity of the tool.
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?
The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It mentions the key detail about not returning contents and points to the sibling tool, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns (metadata fields), what it doesn't return (contents), and how it differs from download_file. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter (file_id) with a description. The description also mentions 'by file_id', which is redundant with the schema. It doesn't add extra semantics like format or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Get metadata for a single Rentvine file by file_id', specifying the action (get), the resource (file), and the identifier (file_id). It also explicitly says it returns metadata (name, size, mime type, attachment info) but not contents, distinguishing it from download_file.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get metadata) and explicitly mentions the alternative (download_file) for fetching content. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the exclusion is implied by naming the alternative and noting 'but not file contents'. This is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.