file_download_toolDownload Grocy-managed files as base64 content by specifying file group and name. Retrieve stored files for use in automation or display.
Download a Grocy-managed file as base64 content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | Yes | ||
| file_name | Yes | ||
| force_picture | No | ||
| best_fit_width | No | ||
| best_fit_height | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the operation is a download returning base64 content, which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not mention failure behavior, permission requirements, or side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It earns its place, though the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter guidance.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values may not need explanation, but the input semantics are entirely undocumented. The tool has five parameters including image-resizing options that are not self-explanatory, and no indication of what 'group' values are valid or how the optional parameters behave. The description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably choose and use the tool.
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 0% and the description provides no meaning for any of the five parameters: group, file_name, force_picture, best_fit_width, or best_fit_height. Since the schema properties have no descriptions, the tool description was the only place to explain them, and it does not.
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 uses a specific verb ('Download'), names the exact resource ('Grocy-managed file'), and specifies the return format ('base64 content'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like file_upload_tool and file_delete_tool without needing to inspect schemas.
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 context for use is clear: when an agent needs the contents of a Grocy-managed file. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like file_upload_tool or file_delete_tool, so it misses explicit when-not/alternative guidance, but the verb and resource make the intended use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.