api

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the operation is free and credits are not consumed, enhancing transparency beyond the structured fields.

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?

Information is well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, usage, return format, examples. Some redundancy in examples and return format could be trimmed, but overall efficient communication.

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?

Covers purpose, usage context, return format, and example prompts. With an output schema present, return values are adequately documented. Minor gaps like error handling or edge cases are not critical for this simple read tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema descriptions cover all three parameters with examples and defaults. The description does not add significant additional semantics beyond restating the bundle_id context. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'signed action receipts' scoped to an evidence bundle owned by the API key. It distinguishes from the sibling tool receipt.verify, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use: after bundle.get, bundle.verify, bundle.notarize, or collection.add_document. Also provides an alternative path: using receipt_id for subsequent verification via receipt.verify.

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

All api 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with no overlap. The category prefixes (account, bundle, collection, document, job, receipt, url) and specific action names (get, notarize, verify, create, list, etc.) ensure that an agent can unambiguously select the correct tool for any task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent category.action or category.action_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., bundle.get, collection.add_document, url.translate). No mixed conventions or irregular names, making the pattern predictable and easy to learn.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the set is somewhat large but each tool addresses a distinct need within a broad domain (evidence management, document AI, collections, URL processing, job tracking, receipts). The count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but still reasonable given the scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has notable gaps: there is no tool to create or delete an evidence bundle, nor to update collections or bundles. The core workflow of creating a bundle from a document is missing, and the lifecycle is incomplete, which would likely cause agent failures in typical use cases.

Resources

Need Help?