billingo_get_document_public_urlRetrieve a shareable public URL for a Billingo document so recipients can view it without a Billingo login.
Returns a shareable public URL for the document, viewable without a Billingo login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| public_url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "public_url": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious fact that the resulting URL grants public, unauthenticated access. It does not say whether the link expires or can be revoked, which is the one remaining behavioral detail an agent would want.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the public-access caveat is packed into the same sentence rather than trailing as an afterthought.
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?
With an output schema present, the return shape needn't be described, and one fully-documented parameter plus rich annotations make this adequate. Only URL lifetime/revocability is missing, a minor gap for such a narrow tool.
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?
Only one parameter ('id') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it; the description adds nothing about the id's meaning or scope. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.
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 ('Returns') and a precise resource ('shareable public URL for the document'), which clearly separates it from billingo_get_document (metadata/body) and billingo_download_document (file bytes). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 phrase 'viewable without a Billingo login' implies the sharing use case but never says when to choose this over get_document or download_document, nor whether a prerequisite (existing document, permissions) applies. Usage is implied, not directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.