Skip to main content
Glama

get_results_gap_receipt

Read-only

READ A RECEIPT for one Results Gap report: the trial, the paper, how PubMed verified it, and whether the link is confirmed or still a lead. Unconfirmed leads never reveal how many others agree.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesReceipt id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoThe answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it.
_metaNosource, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "properties": {
      +    "_meta": {
      +      "additionalProperties": {},
      +      "description": "source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.",
      +      "propertyNames": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "data": {
      +      "description": "The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it."
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maxLength
      Added value: +20000
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 'Unconfirmed leads never reveal how many others agree,' which tells the agent the response is deliberately truncated for unconfirmed records rather than missing data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the payload contents. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and readOnlyHint covers safety. The description supplies the payload summary and the visibility caveat; only the routing relationship to sibling tools is unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the id beyond what's structured, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (a receipt for one Results Gap report) and enumerates the contents: trial, paper, PubMed verification, confirmed vs. lead. It's clear what the tool returns, though it never names the sibling next_results_gap_trial or submit_results_gap to sharpen the boundary.

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 only implied by requiring an id: fetch a single receipt you already have an identifier for. There's no explicit statement of when to use this versus next_results_gap_trial (to find one) or submit_results_gap (to create one).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources