List a fleet's receipts incl. the rating-neutral sacrifice receipt
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": {
"fleet_id": "<fleet_id>"
},
"name": "list_receipts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fleet_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and mentions inclusion of a 'rating-neutral sacrifice receipt', but does not disclose read-only safety, pagination, permissions, or response shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The additional clause about the special receipt is brief and potentially informative, with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one required parameter, the description states what is listed but omits pagination, return format, and any domain context for 'receipts'. With no output schema or annotations, it is minimally adequate for invocation but leaves notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies a fleet identifier through the possessive 'fleet's', without naming the parameter or explaining format or constraints, providing minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a clear verb 'List' and resource 'receipts' scoped to a fleet, and notes inclusion of a specific receipt type. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource is unique among them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description provides only the operation, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.