Retrieve a single document by ID, including the totals stored when it was created, to review invoice details and recorded amounts.
One document, with the totals stored when it was created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. The clause "with the totals stored when it was created" hints that totals are a creation-time snapshot rather than recalculated, which is genuinely useful, but there is no disclosure of permissions, error behavior, or what the response contains.
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 wasted words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. The phrasing is somewhat cryptic and does not front-load an actionable verb.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what a returned document looks like and what "totals" means, but it does neither. For a lookup tool with an undocumented parameter and undocumented return shape, the definition is inadequate.
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?
The single document_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not—it never mentions the parameter, its format, or where an id comes from. The most important semantic (is this an internal or public id?) is left entirely unstated.
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?
"One document" implies fetching a single document by id, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling document_list, but no explicit verb appears and the phrase is close to naming the resource rather than the operation. An agent can infer retrieval, but nothing distinguishes it from document_get_render or document_get_render_stored.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as document_list for multiple documents or document_render for rendered output. The agent must infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.