Retrieve metadata and source ID for a specific inbox document using company slug and document ID.
Hent metadata og kilde-ID for ett innboksbilag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | ||
| company_slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns metadata and a source-ID, with no detail on permission needs, what the metadata contains, or error behavior when the document ID is unknown.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the key outcome (metadata and source-ID) is front-loaded. Its brevity becomes under-specification rather than elegance, but the sentence itself wastes nothing.
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?
Mentioning the return content (metadata plus source-ID) is valuable given there is no output schema, and it implies a follow-up path to reading the document. Still, for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotation on data scope, the description does not fully equip an agent to call it correctly or know its limits.
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 both parameters (document_id, company_slug) are documented only by their titles. The description does not clarify that document_id refers to an inbox item identifier or what company_slug represents, leaving the agent to infer identifier formats and scoping.
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 and resource: fetch metadata and source-ID for a single inbox document, which is more precise than the bare tool name. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as fiken_read_document or fiken_list_inbox, so an agent must guess which retrieval variant applies.
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 indication of when to use this versus fiken_read_document, fiken_list_inbox, or fiken_read_purchase_attachment. No preconditions, no note about whether the document must first be located via fiken_list_inbox.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.