Retrieves a journal entry's PDF or image attachment from Fiken using company, journal entry, and attachment IDs, so you can review source documents such as opening balances.
Les PDF/bilde fra en journalpost, f.eks. inngående balanse. Lenken hentes fra Fiken, ikke fra modellen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| as_image | No | ||
| company_slug | Yes | ||
| attachment_uuid | Yes | ||
| journal_entry_id | 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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note: the link is fetched from Fiken rather than produced by the model, which signals a trusted source. It does not explain what is returned (page image? PDF bytes? URL) or how pagination works.
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, action stated first and the trust caveat second. Nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a binary/PDF-returning tool, the description leaves key gaps: what the call returns, how page/as_image behave, and how it differs from the other read_* siblings. Annotations cover safety but not these operational details.
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 explains none of the five parameters (company_slug, journal_entry_id, attachment_uuid, page, as_image). With low coverage the description should compensate, but it only gestures at 'attachment' abstractly.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Les PDF/bilde fra en journalpost' (read PDF/image from a journal entry), with a concrete example ('inngående balanse'). It does not distinguish itself from the close siblings fiken_read_purchase_attachment or fiken_read_document, 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 guidance on when to use this versus fiken_read_document or fiken_read_purchase_attachment, nor on prerequisites or conditions. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.