numeral_get_transactionGet a recorded transaction by its Numeral id (tr_...). Returns the transaction with its line items, currencies, and metadata. Numeral: GET /tax/transactions/{transaction_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_id | Yes | The Numeral transaction id (tr_...). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to emphasize safety. It adds value by enumerating returned fields (line items, currencies, metadata), which is helpful context beyond the schema.
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 description is short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action and id format. No superfluous 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?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential: what it does, what it returns, and the required input format. No 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 100% (one parameter fully described). The description restates the id format (tr_...), which is already in the schema description, so it adds little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('get') and the resource ('recorded transaction by its Numeral id'). It explains what is returned (line items, currencies, metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on different resources (customers, products) or perform different actions (list, create).
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?
The description implies usage when you have a transaction id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but given the simple retrieval nature, the guidance is clear enough for an agent.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlap. Tax calculations, product/customer management, transaction recording, refunds, and health check are clearly separated.
All tools use a consistent 'numeral_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case. Verbs are standard (calculate, create, get, list, ping) and maintain predictability.
11 tools cover the core functionalities of tax calculation, product/customer management, transaction recording, and refunds without unnecessary extras.
Core CRUD is incomplete: missing lists for customers and transactions, and no update/delete endpoints. While key workflows are covered, significant operational gaps exist.