Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Download multiple-sale report

download_multiple_sale_report
Read-only

Download a Multiple Sale report attachment (ATF 3310.4/5300.9) by specifying the report and attachment IDs, returning the file base64-encoded.

Instructions

Download a Multiple Sale report attachment (ATF Form 3310.4/5300.9) by report id and attachment id. Returns the file base64-encoded. Read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoWhich configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
attachmentIdYesGUID of the attachment within the report.
multipleSaleReportIdYesGUID of the multiple-sale report.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the important behavioral detail that the file is returned base64-encoded. The closing 'Read.' reinforces the read-only nature. There is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler. The resource and action are front-loaded, and the return-format detail earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only download with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives the essential return format and target resource. It omits error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and helpful annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already fully documented. The description mentions the two IDs but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is at baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact resource (Multiple Sale report attachment), identifies the ATF form types, and notes the two required identifiers. This clearly distinguishes it from generic download_attachment and other download siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states how to call the tool ('by report id and attachment id') but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of siblings such as download_attachment or download_4473. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools