Retrieves pre-filled email content for a delivery note, including the default recipient, subject, and body with template variables already substituted.
Get pre-filled email content for a delivery note including default recipient, subject, and body text with template variables already substituted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the delivery note | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides configured default) |
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — template variables are already substituted server-side — but says nothing about what happens when no template is configured or how company defaults interact with the request.
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 well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the returned fields listed last. Nothing is redundant.
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?
For a simple read-only two-parameter tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema an agent would benefit from knowing the response shape more precisely and how it relates to the sibling delivery_notes_email call that would consume this content.
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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents uuid and companyId including the 'overrides configured default' behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but not value-adding.
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?
A specific verb ('Get') plus a specific resource ('pre-filled email content for a delivery note') with the returned fields enumerated. It implicitly separates itself from delivery_notes_email (the send tool) by describing content retrieval, but never names that sibling explicitly.
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 intended use (fetching defaults so an email can be composed or previewed before delivery_notes_email is called) is only implied by 'pre-filled'. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to delivery_notes_email or delivery_notes_email_history as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.