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?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the receipt attests to an act, that the name is self-declared and not verified, and that verification can be done using the public key. This goes beyond simple operation details and reveals important limitations and trust characteristics.
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 yet informative, starting with the core action, then providing necessary background about receipts and verification. Each sentence adds value—defining what a receipt is, clarifying what it does not attest, and explaining why the public key is included. There is no redundant or extraneous content.
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?
While the description explains the purpose and background of receipts, it does not describe the output or return value of the tool. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide some indication of what the check returns (e.g., success/failure, details). Without this, an agent may not know how to interpret the result, so the context is incomplete.
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 input schema has one required parameter 'receipt' of type string, and the description uses the same term, making it clear that the parameter is the receipt string. However, the description does not add meaningful details about the expected format or content of the receipt, so it does not enhance the schema information.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check a receipt. It specifies the resource (receipt) and the action (check), and elaborates on what a receipt attests to, distinguishing it from other potential actions. This makes it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does.
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 provides context on when to use the tool ('Check one of our receipts') and explains that it can be verified without trusting the server. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would warrant a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.