Retrieve the complete JSON data for a single receipt by providing its unique key, enabling direct access to parsed receipt details for further processing or verification.
Show the full JSON of a single receipt by its key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only conveys that this is a read ('show') operation. It doesn't disclose behavior on a missing/invalid key, whether the receipt must already exist, or any size/pagination constraints on the returned JSON. Given zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words. The core operation, scope (single receipt), output type (full JSON), and argument (key) are all front-loaded efficiently.
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?
With an output schema present and only one required parameter, the description covers the basic call contract. However, it omits how the key is obtained (likely from receipt_list) and doesn't address error cases, leaving minor gaps for an otherwise simple retrieval tool.
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 0%, so the bare schema offers only a 'Key' string property. The description adds meaning by stating the key identifies a single receipt and that the result is the full JSON. It doesn't explain key format or provenance, but it does clarify the parameter's role beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the full JSON of a single receipt') and clarifies it operates on a single item 'by its key,' which distinguishes it from receipt_list (multiple receipts) and the mutation siblings (add/edit/delete). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the single-vs-list distinction is clear.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this versus receipt_list or the other receipt tools. There's no stated prerequisite (e.g., that the key is obtained from receipt_list) or explicit exclusion of alternatives. Any sense of when to call it must be inferred from the name and the word 'single.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.