recall-check

get_receipt

Fetch a receipt issued by check_recall (format v1, signed, software-only TRACE record). The same document is served at https://recalls.bot2botlabs.com/receipts/{receipt_id}.

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": {
      "receipt_id": "<receipt_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the document is signed, format v1, a software-only TRACE record, and is also available at a URL using the receipt_id. It does not cover authorization needs, behavior when the receipt is missing or expired, or error responses.

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 compact sentences with the purpose and document nature front-loaded and the alternate retrieval URL second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains what the returned document is and where else it can be accessed. It is nearly complete, though it leaves the receipt_id's provenance and failure behavior unstated.

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%, so the description must explain receipt_id but only shows it inside the URL template. It does not say where the ID comes from, what format it has, or whether it is the identifier returned by check_recall.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch a receipt) and ties it to the issuing sibling check_recall, so an agent can tell this is the retrieval counterpart rather than the check itself. It also names the document format and nature (v1, signed, software-only TRACE record).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: this retrieves a receipt that check_recall already issued. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus check_recall, no prerequisites such as needing a receipt_id from a prior check, and no exclusions.

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

All recall-check 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?