io.github.Anselmoo/mcp-ooxml-ledger

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Export receipt

export_receipt

Idempotent

Generate a self-contained receipt sidecar file for a document, suitable for attaching to submissions, committing to git, or registering with a DOI.

Instructions

Write this document's receipt out as one self-contained sidecar file — the thing you attach to a submission, commit to git, or register alongside a DOI.

Tool call template

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": {
      "document": "<document>"
    },
    "name": "export_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dest`	No
`document`	Yes
`overwrite`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gate`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`bytes`	Yes
`caveat`	Yes
`forced`	Yes
`document`	Yes
`operations`	Yes
`result_digest`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only). The description adds that the emitted artifact is a single self-contained sidecar file, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The appositive adds use-case context without padding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The purpose and high-level behavior are clear, but the tool cannot be confidently invoked without understanding dest and overwrite, and the schema provides no descriptions. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the parameter gap remains significant.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only clarifies 'document' as the receipt source. 'dest' and 'overwrite' receive no explanation, leaving an agent to infer destination behavior and overwrite semantics.

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?

States a specific action ('Write ... out as one self-contained sidecar file') and a clear resource ('this document's receipt'). The use-case framing distinguishes it from siblings like list_receipts and commit_document.

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 clear usage context: attach to a submission, commit to git, or register alongside a DOI. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server