Retrieve an inventory transformation document by document ID and organization ID to view processing act details.
Акт переработки 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 the description adds value by disclosing MCP-server throttling (10 requests/60s) and instructing the agent to cache results. These are behavioral details not present in the annotations and are directly relevant to invocation.
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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, ID sourcing, then throttling/caching. Each sentence carries operational value, though the shorthand 'organizationId → organizations__get_organizations' is terse and slightly cryptic.
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 tool requires two GUID parameters and has no output schema, and the description covers only organizationId acquisition and rate limiting. It does not explain how to get documentId, even though a sibling list tool exists, making the definition incomplete for correct first-time invocation.
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?
The schema documents documentId and organizationId as GUIDs, so the description does not need to restate types. It adds a useful pointer for where to obtain organizationId via organizations__get_organizations, but it does not clarify how to find documentId, leaving part of the parameter sourcing burden unresolved.
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 'Акт переработки по id' clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a transformation/processing document by its ID, and the 'по id' qualifier distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get', but the tool name supplies it and the resource scope is unambiguous.
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 some usage context by pointing to organizations__get_organizations as the source for organizationId and by adding MCP throttling/caching guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus list_inventory_transformation_documents, nor does it mention how to obtain documentId, leaving the usage boundary implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.