Retrieve a sales receipt by ID from KikoBooks to view full receipt details, including line items and payment information.
Get a sales receipt by ID from KikoBooks. Returns full receipt details including line items and payment information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sales_receipt_id | Yes | The sales receipt ID to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose return content ('full receipt details including line items and payment information'), which is useful, but says nothing about error/not-found behavior, permissions, or that this is strictly read-only beyond the verb 'Get'.
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 with the resource and lookup key front-loaded, and the return content second. Every clause earns its place with 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?
For a simple single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It would be fully complete with a note on not-found behavior or the fact that the ID comes from search_sales_receipts.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint details beyond 'by ID', 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a sales receipt by ID from KikoBooks'), which is unambiguous. The 'by ID' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from search_sales_receipts, but no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it just below a 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_sales_receipts, nor any prerequisite guidance beyond the implicit 'you need an ID'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.