Downloads an expense receipt as base64 with its file type, using expense and receipt IDs to retrieve the supporting document.
Télécharge un justificatif d'une dépense (depense_id = numéro de la
dépense dans le compte, justificatif_id = le champ id de
justificatifs_depense), en base64 avec son type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dossier | No | ||
| depense_id | Yes | ||
| justificatif_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return encoding ('en base64 avec son type'), which is real behavioral value for a download tool. However it says nothing about permissions, authentication, size limits, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single well-structured sentence with the action verb front-loaded and the parameter clarifications parenthesized. No wasted text. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for the tool.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is right to state the return format (base64 + type). For a download tool with no annotations, it still omits the `dossier` parameter's purpose and any access/error context, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 clearly explains depense_id ('numéro de la dépense dans le compte') and justificatif_id (the id field from justificatifs_depense), which is genuinely helpful. But the optional `dossier` parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and 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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Télécharge un justificatif d'une dépense' (downloads an expense receipt). This distinguishes it from the list-style sibling justificatifs_depense and from pdf_facture. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, but the parameter gloss ('justificatif_id = le champ id de justificatifs_depense') implies the workflow: call justificatifs_depense first, then fetch the file here. Usage is inferable rather than stated, so a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.