Retrieve a specific file from an Audiobookshelf item using its item ID and file ID. Returns the file data for direct access or download.
Get items file.
GET /api/items/{id}/file/{fileid}
Args: id: Path parameter. fileid: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fileid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of response format, whether binary data is returned, or any side effects. Given annotations exist, the description still fails to enrich the calling context.
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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes no words but also conveys almost no useful information. The content is essentially a restatement of the endpoint and parameter names, providing zero added 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?
With no description of return values (despite having an output schema, it's not referenced), no usage context, and no clarification of what distinguishes this from siblings, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot make an informed decision to call this 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely repeats that id and fileid are path parameters, which is already implied by the endpoint URL. It provides no explanation of what these identifiers refer to, their format, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with two required parameters.
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 says 'Get items file' which is extremely vague. It does not state what kind of file, what format, or what exactly is returned. The name itself gives more detail than the description, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools like get_items_by_id_file_by_fileid_download or get_items_by_id_ebook_by_fileid. The purpose is unclear.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions no context, no exclusions, and no relationship to any sibling tool. An agent has no clue why they might prefer this over get_items_by_id_file_by_fileid_download or other file-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.