download_resourceDownload Ninova files or other authenticated ITU resources to disk; specify optional filename and output directory.
Download a Ninova file or other authenticated resource to disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| filename | No | ||
| output_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"download_resourceDictOutput"New value: +"download_resourceOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the auth requirement ('authenticated resource') and the fact that output lands on disk, but says nothing about overwrite behavior for existing files, default output location, or failure modes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is tight, though its brevity contributes to the underspecification scored in other dimensions.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a three-parameter disk-write tool with 0% schema description coverage the description omits critical operational detail: default download directory, filename derivation, overwrite semantics, and auth prerequisites beyond the adjective 'authenticated'.
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 description names none of the three parameters. 'Authenticated resource' faintly hints that url must be a session-accessible resource, but filename and output_dir (including their null defaults and where files land when omitted) are left entirely unexplained in both schema and 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?
States a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('Ninova file or other authenticated resource') with the destination ('to disk'), which separates it from read_resource_text, which reads content rather than saving it. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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: 'to disk' signals the save-to-local-filesystem scenario, and 'authenticated resource' scopes it to resources the session can access. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as read_resource_text or get_course_class_files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.