Downloads a completed backup as a ZIP file and returns base64-encoded binary data; use it to retrieve backups that are in completed status.
Download a completed backup as a ZIP file. Returns base64-encoded binary data. The backup must be in "completed" status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Backup job ID | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID override (uses active company if not set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the payload is base64-encoded binary data and the call fails unless the backup is completed. It does not mention size limits, expiry of the download link, or error behavior for non-completed backups, which would be the remaining useful detail.
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?
Three short sentences with the action, the return format, and the precondition in that order. No filler, no restating of the tool name.
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 output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden by stating the response is base64-encoded ZIP data, and it covers the blocking precondition. Minor gaps remain around how to poll for completed status and any size/encoding caveats, but an agent can call this correctly from what's given.
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 100%, so both 'id' and 'companyId' are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics — notably it doesn't clarify whether 'id' is a backup job ID vs. an organization ID, or when to override companyId — so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Download a completed backup') and the artifact produced (ZIP file), which separates it cleanly from backup_create/backup_restore/backup_history in the sibling set. It stops short of naming backup_status as the companion call, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
Gives an explicit precondition — the backup must be in "completed" status — which is the key gating condition for calling this tool. It does not name the alternative tools (backup_status to poll, backup_history to locate a backup), leaving the routing to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.