Check one of our receipts. A receipt attests that an act happened here, at a time, bound to a stored artifact you can go and read. It does NOT attest who did it — the name inside is self-declared and the payload says name_verified: false. The public key is at https://gregbenza.ai/receipt/key, so a receipt can be checked without this server being up and without trusting it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although annotations are absent, the description transparently discloses that the receipt's name is self-declared and name_verified is false, and it mentions the public key URL. This clarifies the tool's limitations and trust assumptions, though it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only behavior).
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 concise but informative, using four sentences that each add distinct value: purpose, definition of a receipt, limitations, and verification method. It is well-structured and free of fluff, though slightly wordy given the detail.
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 useful context about receipts and verification, but it lacks an output schema or description of the return value, and the parameter format is unspecified. This makes it incomplete for a fully self-contained tool definition, though not severely deficient.
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 only parameter 'receipt' has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain what format the receipt string should take, how to obtain it, or what it represents beyond the general notion of a receipt. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for constructing a valid input.
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 uses the specific verb 'check' with the resource 'receipt', clearly stating that the tool verifies receipts. It also explicitly clarifies what a receipt does and does not attest to, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.
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 explains when this tool is useful: to verify a receipt independently of the server, using the provided public key. While it doesn't compare directly to sibling tools, it provides strong contextual guidance on the trust model and verification approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.