mcp-agent-docparser

receipt_add

Create or replace a documentation receipt by validating URLs, selectors, and language first. Returns validation errors for malformed inputs so you can correct them before saving.

Instructions

Create a new receipt (or replace an existing one).

Required: key, name, language, urls, selectors. Optional: strip_tags, section, js_render, markdown_passthrough, notes, code_language. Validates before writing; returns validation errors if the receipt is malformed.

language is the human language of the documentation. code_language optionally overrides the ``` fence language when the page's blocks are in another language (e.g. a React SDK doc in English that emits TypeScript). When omitted, the fence language is auto-detected from the page and falls back to language only if it names a code language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`urls`	Yes
`notes`	No
`section`	No
`language`	Yes
`js_render`	No
`selectors`	Yes
`strip_tags`	No
`code_language`	No
`markdown_passthrough`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses upsert semantics, validation-before-write, validation error returns, and the language/code_language fallback behavior. It does not cover permissions or whether omitted fields are cleared on replacement, but the main side effects are visible.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a terse required/optional list, and then focused detail on the ambiguous language parameters. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 11-parameter tool, the description provides the most decision-critical facts: what the tool does, what must be supplied, and how language/code_language interact. It stops short of defining urls, selectors, strip_tags, js_render, and markdown_passthrough, leaving an agent partly reliant on parameter names, though the core invocation path is still clear.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the input schema's silence. It thoroughly explains the two least obvious parameters, language and code_language, including auto-detection and fallback behavior, but the other nine parameters are only named and not semantically defined.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Create a new receipt (or replace an existing one).' This makes the core purpose clear and distinguishes it from list/show/delete tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling receipt_edit, leaving some add-vs-edit ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It identifies required versus optional parameters and states that validation runs before writing, which gives useful preconditions for calling the tool. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer receipt_add over receipt_edit or when replacement would be inappropriate, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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

Deploy Server