AlphaWeb

checkout_report_get

Read-only

Read measured checkout reports, sales and growth with server-computed confidence (owner/admin).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>"
    },
    "name": "checkout_report_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`cart`	No
`days`	No
`from`	No
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`report`	No
`currency`	No
`group_by`	No
`min_units`	No
`workspace`	Yes
`target_pct`	No
`min_lift_pct`	No
`order_number`	No
`experiment_key`	No
`min_weeks_of_cover`	No
`checkout_session_ref`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context by noting owner/admin permissions and server-computed confidence, but it does not explain report-specific behavior, pagination, limits, or how the various report modes behave.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. However, for a tool with 17 parameters and a 25-value report enum, it is arguably too terse to be appropriately sized.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is complex: 17 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no schema parameter descriptions. The definition covers permission level and confidence semantics, but omits the parameter guidance and report-mode distinctions needed to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 17 parameters. It mentions reports, sales, and growth broadly, but gives no meaning for the large 'report' enum, 'group_by', the nested 'cart' object, 'against', cursor/limit behavior, or the many optional filters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb, 'Read', and identifies the resource area as 'measured checkout reports, sales and growth'. It is clear enough to understand the general purpose, but it does not distinguish this reporting tool from adjacent siblings such as checkout_get, analytics_report, sales_get, or support_report.

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?

The only usage constraint given is '(owner/admin)', which indicates permissions but not when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no guidance on which report types to request, when to use date ranges versus cart-based requests, or how it differs from other reporting and checkout tools.

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

All AlphaWeb tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?