Save a shared Indus LMS academic resource file to ~/Downloads/induslms by resource ID and file ID, then return its path, size, and content-type.
Download a shared file to ~/Downloads/induslms. Returns path, size, content-type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | ||
| resource_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Input schema / properties / tenant_idRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Tenant Id"
-}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight, and it does disclose the concrete local destination (~/Downloads/induslms) and the returned fields. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, overwrite/re-run behavior, and whether the file is fetched from a remote share.
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 tight sentences with no filler, and the action plus destination come first. Efficient, though the brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere rather than being purely an asset.
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-value detail is not required, but for a two-required-param tool with zero annotations and no parameter explanation the definition is under-specified. An agent lacks enough to confidently distinguish it from od_download or supply correct IDs.
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 never explains resource_id versus file_id, both required. The agent must guess the relationship between a resource and a file inside it, which is a real risk for correct invocation.
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 states a specific verb ('Download') plus resource ('a shared file') and even names the destination folder, so an agent immediately knows what happens. It fails to distinguish itself from the sibling od_download, leaving ambiguity about which download tool to pick.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a sibling (od_download) that plausibly overlaps. The only hint is the 'shared file' framing, which is too weak to route selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.