Retrieve a single archived SPV document from Storno e-invoicing, including ANAF IDs, dates, archive status, and download error details.
Get one archived SPV document with all details (ANAF ids, dates, archive status, download errors).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | SPV document UUID | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.28Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description does not disclose side effects or safety characteristics. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur, leaving behavioral transparency incomplete.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that is well-structured and easy to scan. It contains no unnecessary information, keeping the focus squarely on the tool's core function.
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?
The description provides the essential purpose and mentions specific detail categories, but it lacks context about permissions, error handling, or output format. Given the simple nature of a get operation, this is mostly adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
The schema already covers the two parameters with brief explanations, and the description does not add further semantic detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the score is at the baseline of 3.
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 tool retrieves a single archived SPV document along with all its details, listing key attributes. It distinguishes from other SPV tools like list and download by focusing on one document's full details.
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 description implies usage when a single document's details are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as spv_documents_list or spv_documents_download. No explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.