Skip to main content
Glama

ReturnCheck

by io.github.mangelmartinezfer-hue

check_return

Answer one question: can this specific product actually be returned? BEST RESULTS: send the product page you already have as page_text (or page_html) along with product_url — your browser renders JavaScript and is not blocked by retailers, so this works on any store and is faster. Without it we fetch the page ourselves and reach the policy for about 1 in 3 US retailers (17 of 50 measured 2026-08-28; mostly Shopify and direct-to-consumer brands — large retailers and marketplaces block server-side reads). You get a verified verdict — YES / YES_WITH_CONDITIONS / NO / UNKNOWN — with the exact policy clause quoted verbatim, source URL, return window/deadline, fees and a confidence score. Never invents: returns UNKNOWN instead of guessing, and UNKNOWN is free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNo
merchantNo
page_htmlNoRECOMMENDED (alternative to page_text). Raw HTML of the same page. Slightly better than page_text: we can also read structured data (JSON-LD) from it.
page_textNoRECOMMENDED. Plain text of the product or returns page you already have open. We verify against this instead of fetching: works on any store, no blocking, no JavaScript problem, and faster. Still never invents: no verifiable clause -> UNKNOWN (free).
product_urlYesThe product page URL (http/https).
seller_nameNo
buyer_countryYesISO 3166-1 alpha-2, e.g. 'US'.
delivery_dateNoYYYY-MM-DD (optional; preferred for the deadline).
purchase_dateNoYYYY-MM-DD (optional).
item_conditionNo
payment_signatureNoOPTIONAL. x402 payment authorization, base64 — the same envelope the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header carries over HTTP. Use it to pay per call with no account and no signup. How: call once without it; if the free trial is exhausted you get the payment terms in structuredContent (x402Version, accepts[]); sign that authorization and call again with payment_signature set. Terms are also published at /.well-known/x402. UNKNOWN verdicts are never settled: the authorization simply expires unused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_signature
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "OPTIONAL. x402 payment authorization, base64 — the same envelope the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header carries over HTTP. Use it to pay per call with no account and no signup. How: call once without it; if the free trial is exhausted you get the payment terms in structuredContent (x402Version, accepts[]); sign that authorization and call again with payment_signature set. Terms are also published at /.well-known/x402. UNKNOWN verdicts are never settled: the authorization simply expires unused.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / page_html / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: raw HTML of the page you already have. If provided, ReturnCheck verifies against it instead of fetching — best coverage, bypasses sites that block server-side reads. Still never invents: no verifiable clause -> UNKNOWN."New value: +"RECOMMENDED (alternative to page_text). Raw HTML of the same page. Slightly better than page_text: we can also read structured data (JSON-LD) from it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / page_text / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: plain text of the page (alternative to page_html)."New value: +"RECOMMENDED. Plain text of the product or returns page you already have open. We verify against this instead of fetching: works on any store, no blocking, no JavaScript problem, and faster. Still never invents: no verifiable clause -> UNKNOWN (free)."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / page_html
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: raw HTML of the page you already have. If provided, ReturnCheck verifies against it instead of fetching — best coverage, bypasses sites that block server-side reads. Still never invents: no verifiable clause -> UNKNOWN.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / page_text
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: plain text of the page (alternative to page_html).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so impressively. It explains the browser-rendering advantage, the fallback fetch success rate, the blocking behavior of large retailers, the policy-quoting behavior, the confidence score, and the rule 'never invents: returns UNKNOWN instead of guessing.' It also discloses that UNKNOWN is free and clarifies payment authorization behavior.

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?

The description is longer than average but front-loaded with the core purpose and best-results workflow. Each sentence contributes useful operational information, though a few phrases ('your browser renders JavaScript and is not blocked by retailers') could be trimmed without losing meaning. Overall it earns its length but is slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the verdict vocabulary, the exact policy clause quote, source URL, return window, fees, confidence score, fallback behavior, and the payment flow. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 64%, so the description does not need to compensate for every parameter, but it still adds real meaning. It clarifies the relationship between page_text and page_html, explains why page_text is RECOMMENDED, and gives detailed operational context for payment_signature. However, some parameters like item_condition, reason, merchant, and seller_name receive no additional semantic guidance beyond 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?

The description opens with a precise question the tool answers: 'can this specific product actually be returned?' This states the verb, resource, and expected outcome unambiguously. It also names the concrete verdict values it produces, making the tool's function unmistakable even without siblings.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: send page_text or page_html along with product_url for best results, and explains what happens when you don't ('Without it we fetch the page ourselves'). It does not compare against alternative tools, but no sibling tools exist, so the practical conditional guidance is strong and actionable.

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

All ReturnCheck toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. Its purpose as a return-eligibility checker is explicit and unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

check_return follows a clear verb_noun convention and is the only tool name, so there are no mixed styles or inconsistencies to penalize.

Tool Count3/5

The tool directly serves the server's narrow purpose, but at one tool the surface feels thin and offers no auxiliary operations such as policy comparison or multi-product checks.

Completeness5/5

The tool fully covers the stated return-checking question: it accepts page context, falls back to server-side fetching, and returns a verified verdict with policy clause, source URL, window, fees, and confidence.

Resources