Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cyan Eclipse Book MCP

Cyan Eclipse Book MCP

Official
by CYAN-ECLIPSE-TECHNOLOGIES-LLC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

receipt_list

List append-only, hash-chained ledger receipts and verify chain integrity; set an optional limit to control how many entries are returned.

Instructions

T0. The suite ledger: append-only, hash-chained receipts; verifies the chain.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "receipt_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add meaningful domain context (append-only, hash-chained ledger), but it does not say whether verification failures raise errors, whether results are paginated, whether auth is required, or what a receipt record contains.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but the opening token "T0." is unexplained noise and the remainder is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb. Brevity here comes at the cost of usability rather than from efficiency.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know what receipts are returned, in what order, and what the chain-verification result looks like. None of that is present, and the ambiguous verb leaves the core operation undefined.

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?

There is one parameter, limit, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions it, so neither source explains its default, maximum, or whether it caps the number of receipts returned or the verification window. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource domain (the suite ledger of append-only, hash-chained receipts) but never states the actual action. The name says receipt_list, yet the text emphasizes "verifies the chain," which reads like a verification operation and collides with the sibling resolution_verify, so an agent cannot confidently tell what this call does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the sixteen siblings (resolution_report, resolution_verify, resolution_get would be the obvious confusables). 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools