Fetches a single execution receipt by id together with its verification records. The receipt is the record of a job signed by the worker and, once finalized, countersigned by the requester; verification records are verdicts from operator-authorized verifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiptId | Yes | sha256:... receipt id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by explaining domain semantics the annotations cannot: that a receipt is a worker-signed job record later countersigned by the requester, and that verification records are verdicts from operator-authorized verifiers.
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?
Two tight sentences: the operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence supplies only the domain gloss needed to interpret the return payload. 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?
With no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does — a receipt plus its verification records, with definitions of each. It stops short of stating error behavior (e.g. not-found or unfinalized receipts) or auth prerequisites, which would round out a single-parameter read tool.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents receiptId as a 'sha256:...' id. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format, validation, or error nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific verb (fetches) and resource (a single execution receipt by id) and even previews the returned payload (its verification records). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the closely related sibling inam_verify_receipt, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Usage is implied by 'fetches a single execution receipt by id' — a read-one-by-identifier operation — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as inam_verify_receipt or a search tool. The guidance is adequate but leaves the agent to infer routing.
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.
