lexware_deeplink_fileGet a direct link to the bookkeeping inbox for newly-uploaded files, enabling quick access in the Lexware web app.
Get a direct link to the bookkeeping inbox of newly-uploaded files in the Lexware web app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns a 'direct link' to the bookkeeping inbox, which is consistent. No contradictions but no additional behavioral details (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits) are provided. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without excess. It is front-loaded and to the point. However, given the many siblings, slightly more detail might be warranted without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at return value. It does mention 'direct link', which is helpful. But it does not clarify whether the link leads to viewing or uploading, or if it's for all files or only newly uploaded. In context of many similar tools, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information since none exist, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get a direct link' and the resource 'bookkeeping inbox of newly-uploaded files', distinguishing it from other deeplink tools that target specific document types. However, the phrase 'newly-uploaded files' may imply a temporal limitation that is not confirmed, causing slight ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternates. Given many sibling deeplink tools for different entities (vouchers, invoices, contacts, etc.), the lack of usage context or alternatives is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.