Retrieve an inventory disassembly document by its ID. Use this to access details of a specific disassembly record for an organization.
Акт разборки по id. Где взять ID: organizationId → organizations__get_organizations. Троттлинг MCP-сервера (не лимит iikoCloud): не чаще 10 запрос(ов) за 60 с — кэшируйте результат в диалоге.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: MCP-server throttling (max 10 requests per 60 seconds) and a caching recommendation, which are not present in annotations and help the agent plan calls appropriately.
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 highly concise, with three short sentences each serving a distinct purpose: core action, ID source, and throttling guidance. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.
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?
The description covers purpose, organizationId source, and throttling, but omits where to obtain the documentId (likely from the list endpoint) and provides no information about the return value. Given the absence of an output schema and the need to call this tool correctly, this is a notable gap in completeness.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains where to obtain organizationId, but does not clarify the source of documentId or its relationship beyond 'по id'. This adds partial meaning but leaves the agent to infer documentId semantics from the bare GUID schema 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?
The description states 'Акт разборки по id' (disassembly act by id), which clearly identifies the action and resource. The explicit 'по id' distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_inventory_disassemble_documents, and the instruction on obtaining organizationId further clarifies the scope.
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 by explaining where to obtain the organizationId via organizations__get_organizations, implying this tool is for fetching a single document by ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not cases, but the get-by-id purpose is evident and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.