PaKi Curator

Confirm acquisition

confirm_acquisition

Confirm a purchase prepared with request_acquisition, once the buyer has seen it and agreed. It reserves the work and returns the bank transfer instructions: an account opened for this purchase only, and a reference to write on the transfer. Takes the confirmation code, the same buyer email and the buyer's acceptance of the licence and the terms of sale; every buyer also agrees to immediate delivery. Confirming twice returns the same instructions.

Tool call template

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": {
      "confirmation_code": "<confirmation_code>",
      "buyer_email": "<buyer_email>",
      "accepts_licence": "<accepts_licence>",
      "accepts_terms": "<accepts_terms>",
      "consents_immediate_delivery": "<consents_immediate_delivery>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_acquisition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`buyer_email`	Yes	The same buyer email the purchase was prepared with
`accepts_terms`	Yes	true only if the buyer has seen the terms of sale and accepts them
`accepts_licence`	Yes	true only if the buyer has seen the licence and accepts it
`confirmation_code`	Yes	The code request_acquisition returned
`consents_immediate_delivery`	Yes	true only if the buyer agrees to immediate delivery and acknowledges that their right of withdrawal ends when the download begins (every buyer, a business too: some sole traders have that right)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it reserves the work, creates a per-purchase bank account, returns a transfer reference, and requires buyer consent flags. However, 'Confirming twice returns the same instructions' asserts repeat-call safety while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, so the agent gets conflicting signals about whether a retry re-reserves or re-notifies.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the prerequisite, then the side effect, then the required inputs, then the retry note. Dense but every sentence carries information; the third sentence is long but not padded.

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?

For a non-destructive but state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, what gets reserved, what is returned (account + reference), consent requirements, and repeat behavior. Missing error paths (e.g. declined terms, expired code) and the note that the transfer itself is out-of-band, but it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description restates the same semantics (same buyer email, confirmation code, acceptance flags) and adds only the note that every buyer, including businesses, must consent to immediate delivery — marginal added meaning over the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Confirm a purchase') and situates it in a two-step flow with the sibling request_acquisition. The downstream effect ('reserves the work and returns the bank transfer instructions') makes it unmistakable versus confirm_inquiry or acquisition_status.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition and ordering: use it 'once the buyer has seen it and agreed', and the purchase must first have been prepared with request_acquisition. No explicit when-not-to-use or error-handling guidance, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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

All PaKi Curator 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?