DocImprint

List Action Receipts

receipt.list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List signed action receipts (rcpt_...) for an evidence bundle owned by your API key. Free — no credits consumed. Use after bundle.get, bundle.verify, bundle.notarize, or collection.add_document to audit which agent actions were bound to which manifest hash. Pass a receipt_id from the results to receipt.verify for independent signature + manifest-binding verification. Returns: { bundle_id, receipts: [{ receipt_id, bundle_id, agent_id, action, manifest_sha256, signed_at, signature, signer_address, key_id, algorithm }], limit, offset } Example prompts:

"List all signed action receipts for bundle ev_550e8400."
"What agent actions have been recorded against this evidence bundle?"
"Show me the receipts for [bundle_id] so I can verify one."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max receipts to return (default 50, max 200). Example: 50
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (default 0). Example: 0
`bundle_id`	Yes	Evidence bundle ID (ev_...) to list receipts for. Example: "ev_550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`receipts`	Yes
`bundle_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: free (no credits consumed), returns specific structure with full JSON example. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so description adds no contradictions.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose sentence, usage guidelines, free note, when-to-use, next step, example output, example prompts. Front-loaded with key action and condition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Complete for a tool with 3 parameters, output schema present, and full annotations. Description covers input, output, usage context, and provides examples. No gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so description doesn't need to add much parameter info. However, it provides the output structure in the description with example fields, adding value beyond schema. Baseline 3 raised to 4 for including return format.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'signed action receipts' with context (evidence bundle owned by API key). Distinguishes from sibling receipt.verify by specifying it lists receipts, not verifies them.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool: after bundle.get, bundle.verify, bundle.notarize, or collection.add_document. Also tells the next step: pass receipt_id to receipt.verify. Mentions it's free.

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

All DocImprint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, grouped by domain (account, bundle, collection, document, job, receipt, url). Descriptions and naming make it easy to differentiate between similar tools like url.extract vs document.extract_text or collection.search vs collection.ask.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the same prefix.group_action pattern in snake_case (e.g., account.quota, bundle.get, collection.create). No mixing of conventions, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive set of operations for document and evidence management. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count feels well-scoped without being bloated or sparse.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface lacks explicit create and delete operations for bundles and collections. Bundles appear to be created externally, and there is no tool to remove a bundle or collection. This is a notable gap given the server's stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?