Reads PDF or image attachments from an existing Fiken purchase using the attachment link supplied by Fiken, enabling document review without relying on model-provided URLs.
Les PDF/bilde fra et eksisterende kjøp. Lenken hentes fra Fiken, ikke fra modellen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| as_image | No | ||
| purchase_id | Yes | ||
| company_slug | Yes | ||
| attachment_uuid | 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 and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the link is resolved from Fiken rather than constructed by the model. It omits, however, what the tool actually returns (URL, base64, binary) and how page/as_image change the response.
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 short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, and the link-provenance caveat second. No filler.
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?
A 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no explanation of return format, pagination (page) or image conversion (as_image). For a binary/document retrieval tool the description leaves the agent guessing about the response shape, which is a material gap.
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 all five parameters are undocumented. The description only faintly hints at format behavior via 'PDF/bilde' (relevant to as_image) and says nothing about page, company_slug, or the expected shape of attachment_uuid, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (read) and a specific resource (attachment from an existing purchase), and clarifies the payload is a PDF/image. The resource scoping ('fra et eksisterende kjøp') distinguishes it from fiken_read_journal_entry_attachment, though the description never explicitly contrasts it with fiken_list_purchase_attachments or fiken_read_document.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus fiken_list_purchase_attachments or fiken_read_document, and no prerequisite noted (e.g. that attachment_uuid must first come from the list tool). 'Eksisterende kjøp' only faintly implies the tool requires a pre-existing purchase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.