Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_document_download_url

Retrieve a signed download URL for a document in RocketMatter, enabling direct access to the file.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] Signed download URLs are not exposed by /v1 (read-only documents). Fails loudly.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fields_json": "<fields_json>"
    },
    "name": "get_document_download_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fields_jsonYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool fails loudly and that documents are read-only, which is important behavioral context. However, without annotations, it fails to provide details on how the failure occurs (e.g., error type) or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loading the key message that the tool fails. It is efficient but somewhat cryptic with the '[Not in LCS /v1]' prefix.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool designed to fail, the description conveys the essential information. However, it lacks explanation of the parameter, the output schema, or potential error details, leaving gaps for complete understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'fields_json' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or format. The agent is left guessing, with 0% schema coverage and no compensatory explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool fails because signed download URLs are not exposed in this API version. It explicitly says 'Fails loudly,' indicating the tool's primary action is to fail when called.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or alternatives. The description only notes that it fails, but does not suggest other tools like get_document_upload_url or indicate that get_document_download_url should be avoided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools