Downloads a file stored in a dosar to a local path so you can sign or process it before uploading the updated copy.
Download a file kept in a dosar to a local path (e.g. to sign it with agent_sign_pdf, then upload the signed copy with dosare_files_upload).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Dosar id | |
| fileId | Yes | ||
| outFile | Yes | ||
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.37Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds a key detail the annotations omit: the tool writes a file to a local path, so 'read-only' applies to the server, not the filesystem. It does not say whether an existing outFile is overwritten or whether parent directories are created.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource before the optional workflow hint. No redundant restatement of the title.
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 download tool with full safety annotations and a simple 4-param schema, the description covers the essential context. Minor gaps remain around overwrite behavior and what the call returns (a local path vs. confirmation), but no output schema is needed to correct that.
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 coverage is 50%: id and companyId are documented in the schema, while fileId and outFile are not. The description supplies meaning for outFile ('local path') but says nothing about fileId beyond the dosar context, so it only partially compensates.
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 (a file kept in a dosar) plus the destination (a local path). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from dosare_files_upload by naming the opposite operation in the workflow.
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 a concrete usage scenario — download, sign with agent_sign_pdf, re-upload — which tells an agent where this fits in a chain. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites, but no competing download sibling exists for dosare files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.