JENNi Shop Local

Place the order

complete_checkout

DestructiveIdempotent

Place the order. Only after the shopper has approved the total from update_checkout. With the shopper's Stripe shared payment token (spt_...), issued for at least the order total, JENNi charges it and places the order now. Never send card numbers. Delivered by JENNi. payment_token is optional. Without an spt_, call with only checkout_id: the result carries continue_url, the shopper's pay link, and the order is placed when they pay there. With a Link Agent Wallet, make a spend request (credential_type shared_payment_token, the network_id and amount_cents from this checkout's payment block) and pass the spt_ here.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`checkout_id`	Yes
`payment_token`	No	Optional. Stripe shared payment token, starting spt_. Leave it out to get the shopper's pay link (continue_url).
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional. Reuse the same value to retry safely; the retry returns the first result instead of acting twice.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	incomplete, ready_for_complete, requires_escalation, completed or canceled.
`totals`	Yes
`currency`	No
`messages`	Yes
`order_id`	No
`next_step`	Yes
`expires_at`	No
`line_items`	No
`checkout_id`	Yes
`reason_code`	No
`continue_url`	No	Present when the shopper should finish on JENNi instead.
`fulfilled_by`	Yes
`fulfillment_options`	Yes
`selected_fulfillment_mode`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / payment_token / description

Previous value: -"Stripe shared payment token, starting spt_."New value: +"Optional. Stripe shared payment token, starting spt_. Leave it out to get the shopper's pay link (continue_url)."

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "checkout_id",
-  "payment_token"
-]New value: +[
+  "checkout_id"
+]

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what actually happens beyond the flag: JENNi charges the spt_ and places the order now, the spt_ must be issued for at least the order total, and without it the order only finalizes when the shopper pays at continue_url. That is meaningful consequence and precondition context a bare destructive flag cannot convey, with no contradiction.

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?

The critical information is front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the fallback and wallet flows trailing. It is dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; the Link Agent Wallet clause is detailed enough to slightly slow scanning, but it is operationally necessary.

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?

For a destructive, payment-charging tool, the description covers prerequisites, both execution paths, security constraints, and even the continue_url return field, while the output schema handles the rest. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or safely is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description goes well beyond it: it explains why payment_token is optional, the exact consequence of omitting it (continue_url fallback), and the spt_ issuance requirement plus the network_id/amount_cents source for the wallet spend request. Only idempotency_key is left to the schema, which already documents it well.

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 very first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Place the order'), and the sequencing clause ('Only after the shopper has approved the total from update_checkout') positions it against the sibling update_checkout. An agent immediately understands this is the terminal step of the checkout flow that finalizes and charges.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use (after shopper approval of the total), when-not/constraint ('Never send card numbers'), and two concrete alternatives with their conditions: call with only checkout_id to get a continue_url pay link, or, with a Link Agent Wallet, make a spend request and pass the spt_. This is the full when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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

All JENNi Shop Local 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?