lexware_download_fileRetrieve a file from Lexware by its UUID and receive the content as base64-encoded data. Get the file you need directly from the Lexware API.
Download a file from Lexware. Returns the file as base64-encoded content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | File UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful but minimal context: the response format (base64). It does not disclose potential errors, size limits, or behavior for invalid IDs, so it is adequate but not exceptional.
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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the return format. Every sentence adds essential value.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the basic function and output format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error conditions, file size limits, or the relationship to other download tools. The annotations fill in many gaps, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', described as 'File UUID' with a UUID pattern. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how to obtain the ID or constraints on file types. The baseline score of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.
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 action 'download' and resource 'file from Lexware', and specifies the return format as base64-encoded content. However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling download tools for specific document types (e.g., invoices, credit notes), leaving ambiguity about when to use this generic file download versus a specialized one.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lexware_download_invoice_file or lexware_download_credit_note_file. The description fails to clarify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, which is a significant gap given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.