Read an existing attachment from a specified Folio event to inspect its content, with options to choose a page or return it as an image.
Les et eksisterende vedlegg på en bestemt Folio-hendelse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| as_image | No | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| attachment_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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain the 'page' parameter's pagination behavior, what 'as_image' does to the returned payload, or how large attachments are handled.
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, front-loaded with verb and resource. It is efficiently written but arguably too sparse given the undocumented parameters.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves the agent unable to predict the response shape or the effect of pagination and image conversion. Annotations cover safety only, so the gaps are real.
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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It only loosely implies event_id and attachment_id ('på en bestemt Folio-hendelse'), and never mentions the non-obvious 'page' or 'as_image' switches.
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 ('les ... vedlegg') plus a scope qualifier ('på en bestemt Folio-hendelse'), so an agent knows it retrieves an attachment tied to an event. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as folio_get_event or folio_read_invoice, which read related but different resources.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus folio_get_event (which may list attachments) or folio_read_invoice. The only implicit guidance is that both an event and an attachment must already be known, since they are required parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.