Retrieves a Folio category and its receipt documentation requirements by category ID, so you can verify what documentation is needed before attaching an invoice.
Les Folios kategori og krav til bilagsdokumentasjon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category_id | 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what a 'category' contains, whether missing IDs error or return empty, or what the documentation requirements mean in practice.
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 zero waste and the resource front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned concision. It reads as a title restated in sentence form.
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 and no annotation gaps to excuse it, the description should explain what a category object and its documentation requirements look like. It does not, and it leaves the only parameter undocumented, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it end-to-end.
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% for the single required parameter category_id, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions the parameter at all. The agent cannot tell from either source what format a category_id takes (numeric, slug, prefixed) or where to obtain one.
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 names a verb ('Les' / read) and a resource ('Folios kategori'), plus an additional scope ('krav til bilagsdokumentasjon' — documentation requirements). However, it is terse and does not distinguish this from siblings such as folio_list_accounts or folio_get_transaction, so the agent must infer it is a single-category lookup by ID.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent gets no routing signal among the eleven sibling tools, several of which plausibly return category-adjacent data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.