Download a tax declaration's generated XML by declaration UUID, optionally overriding the company ID, to retrieve raw XML content for e-Factura or ANAF processing.
Download the generated XML for a tax declaration. Returns the raw XML content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Declaration UUID | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the fact that it returns raw XML content (useful since there is no output schema), but says nothing about auth requirements or behavior when the XML has not yet been generated.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the second sentence delivering the output-format detail. No filler.
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?
A simple read-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an explicit return-format statement — enough to call correctly. Minor gap: no mention of failure behavior if the XML does not exist or how the raw content is delivered.
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 parameters (id, companyId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
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 (download) and resource (generated XML for a tax declaration) and clarifies the return format. It is distinguishable from declarations_download_pdf by the XML vs PDF payload, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling alternatives.
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 'generated XML' implies a declaration must already have been built, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as declarations_download_pdf or declarations_get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.