ohneben's Wafeq MCP

wafeq_files_retrieve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single Wafeq file by its ID to access stored documents or attachments, enabling direct retrieval of specific files from the API.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Files · GET /files/{id}/

Retrieve file

Endpoint for retrieving a single file.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wafeq_files_retrieve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description repeats READ-ONLY and GET but adds no additional behavioral context such as response format, authentication needs, or side effects. No contradiction exists, so it is acceptable but not enriching.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY marker and endpoint, but 'Retrieve file' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single file' are redundant restatements. It is concise but contains some repetition that prevents a higher score.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, so a minimal description can be sufficient. However, without an output schema or any description of the response or id source, the description leaves minor gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what the 'id' parameter represents beyond showing it in the URL path. It fails to compensate for the schema gap by not stating that the ID identifies the file or where an agent might obtain it.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve file') and resource ('Files · GET /files/{id}/'), and says it retrieves a single file, which distinguishes it from list/upload/destroy siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the single-file scope is clear.

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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving one file by ID, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over wafeq_files_list or wafeq_upload_file. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage context is only implied.

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

Deploy Server