Retrieve a single dosar with its linked declarations, SPV requests, ANAF messages, and chronological timeline of filed, index, recipisa, and answer events.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the aggregate payload composition (declarations, SPV requests, ANAF messages, timeline stages like 'recipisa'), but says nothing about error behavior for a missing id or how companyId overrides affect scope.
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 dense sentence with zero filler, and the key payload contents are front-loaded. It is a noun fragment rather than a statement of action, which slightly reduces immediate parseability.
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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does a reasonable job of listing the aggregated sections. However, for an aggregate detail tool it omits id format, not-found behavior, and whether the timeline is paginated or bounded.
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 documented in the schema, but id (required, uuid) has no description. The tool description adds no parameter information at all, so it does not compensate for the uncovered half; an agent gets no hint about the id format or the companyId override semantics from the description.
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 names the specific resource (one dosar) and enumerates exactly what is bundled with it — linked declarations, SPV requests, ANAF messages, and a chronological timeline. That singular scope implicitly separates it from dosare_list, but it never states the retrieval verb or the id-based lookup 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?
Usage is only implied: 'One dosar' signals singular detail retrieval versus the sibling dosare_list. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of related_get, dosare_stats, or dosare_document as alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., company context) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.