Fetches a dosar along with its linked declarations, SPV requests, ANAF messages, and chronological timeline to provide a full case overview.
One dosar with its linked declarations, SPV requests, ANAF messages and the chronological timeline (filed, index, recipisa, answers).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by specifying the data scope (linked declarations, SPV requests, ANAF messages, timeline with filed/index/recipisa/answers), but doesn't disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or response structure. For a read-style 'get' operation the scope disclosure is useful, but gaps remain given zero annotation coverage.
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 resource ('One dosar') before enumerating the included data. Every element earns its place, and the parenthetical timeline detail is compact. Slightly dense with domain jargon but efficient overall.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description is the only source for return-value expectations. It lists the data categories well, but leaves domain terms (filed, index, recipisa, answers) unexplained and says nothing about error cases or how companyId interacts with the env var. Adequate for the data scope but not complete for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema.
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 only 50%: companyId is described in the schema but the required 'id' parameter has no schema description. The tool description mentions nothing about the parameters, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required 'id' field. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the verb ('get' via name) and resource ('One dosar'), and enumerates the scope of returned data: linked declarations, SPV requests, ANAF messages, and chronological timeline. The 'One dosar' phrasing distinguishes it from dosare_list (plural), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from dosare_document or related_get.
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 on when to use this tool versus its many siblings such as dosare_list, dosare_document, related_get, or efactura_messages_get. With such a crowded namespace of related dosar/spv/efactura tools, the lack of any selection criteria forces the agent to infer from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.