growwer_get_invoice_pdfDownloads the PDF for a top-up invoice by invoice ID. Use the invoice list tool first to find the correct ID, then retrieve the file.
Use this when the user needs the PDF of one of their top-up invoices: returns the file. Find the invoice id with growwer_list_invoices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare safe-read (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, but the description usefully adds that this returns a binary file, which is not expressed anywhere else and matters because there is no output schema. No auth or size-limit context, but the essential behavioral fact is covered.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition followed by the prerequisite lookup. Nothing is extraneous.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers when to use it, how to get the id, and that the return is a file. Lacking only minor details like permissions or file format, and annotations already carry the safety profile.
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 0% and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does by telling the agent to obtain the id from growwer_list_invoices, which is exactly the missing semantic, though it gives no format or validation detail.
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 (return the PDF file) and resource (top-up invoices), and the qualifier 'top-up' implicitly distinguishes it from growwer_download_withdrawal_invoice. An agent can identify what it retrieves without opening the schema.
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 an explicit trigger ('when the user needs the PDF of one of their top-up invoices') and routes the agent to growwer_list_invoices to obtain the id. It doesn't explicitly exclude the withdrawal-invoice sibling, but the 'top-up' scoping does most of that work.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.