Hent checkout.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_checkout"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| meta | No | UCP request metadata, fx {"ucp-agent":{"profile":"https://..."}}. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether retrieval is read-only, what happens for an unknown or expired checkout id, nor any auth requirements for the nested UCP metadata. Two words cannot cover the behavioral profile of a checkout lookup.
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?
The text is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no structure, no front-loaded purpose, and not a single sentence that conveys usable information.
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?
A checkout-retrieval tool with a nested metadata object, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain the identifier, the metadata, and the return shape. It explains none of these.
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 only 50%: the required "id" parameter has no schema description, and the description says nothing about its expected format. The nested "meta" object's UCP agent profile is documented in the schema but the description adds zero meaning beyond it.
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?
"Hent checkout" only restates the tool name verb+resource with no scope, no statement of what a checkout record contains or which one is returned. It is minimally distinguishable from get_cart or get_product by resource noun alone, but adds no differentiating information.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_cart, lookup_catalog, or any of the other sibling retrieval tools, and no mention of preconditions such as an existing checkout id. The agent must infer everything from the name.
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.