Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
idoklad-mcp

idoklad-mcp

by honzsik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Download document PDF

get_document_pdf
Idempotent

Download the PDF of an invoice, proforma, credit note or received invoice and save it to a local folder; returns the file path.

Instructions

Download the PDF of an invoice, proforma, credit note or received invoice and save it to a local folder. Returns the file path.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "documentType": "<documentType>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_document_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesDocument ID.
languageNoPDF language. Default: the document's own language.
documentTypeYes
withPaymentsNoInclude the payment summary (not for received invoices).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare non-read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior, and the description supplies the key missing context: the call writes a file to a local folder and returns the file path. It doesn't cover overwrite behavior for an existing file or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential action and outcome; no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value (file path) and the local-save side effect. Minor gaps remain on defaults and the payment-summary restriction, which the schema partially covers.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75% and three of four parameters carry descriptions, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds meaning by mapping the document-kind list to documentType, but says nothing about language or withPayments, including the received-invoice caveat.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (download the PDF of ... document types) and enumerates the document kinds matching the documentType enum. An agent can tell this apart from get_issued_invoice-style data fetches, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it complements.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'Download the PDF ... save it to a local folder' – an agent can infer this is for when a file artifact is needed rather than JSON data. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools