Errand Runs MCP Server

mark_bought

Mark an errand item as purchased by id or name, optionally recording price, store, and purchase date for receipt tracking.

Instructions

Close an item as bought: reference it by id (I-3) or name ('oat milk'). Price is what you paid, if you want it on the receipt. For items tagged with several stores, say which store it came from using store. Use bought_on (YYYY-MM-DD) only when closing for a past day; the default is today.

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": {
      "item": "<item>"
    },
    "name": "mark_bought"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item`	Yes
`price`	No
`store`	No
`bought_on`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation closes/mutates an item, that price feeds the receipt, and that the date defaults to today, but it says nothing about permissions, whether closing can be undone, or what happens when a name matches multiple items. That leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 essential action and item reference come first, followed by the three optional fields in order of relevance, with no filler sentences. Each clause adds a concrete rule or format detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

All four parameters are explained, and the existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. What remains thin is the mutation semantics (idempotency, failure on ambiguous names), which matter given the absence of annotations.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully: `item` accepts an id like I-3 or a name like 'oat milk', `price` is what was paid, `store` disambiguates multi-store items, and `bought_on` takes YYYY-MM-DD and defaults to today. Every one of the four parameters gains meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 verb and resource: "Close an item as bought", then states how the item is referenced. An agent can tell this is a state-changing close-out action rather than logging or listing, though no sibling tool is named to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for the optional fields: use `store` only for items tagged with several stores, and use `bought_on` only when closing for a past day, with today as the default. It does not say when to prefer this over siblings like log_item or tally, so selection guidance is incomplete but the per-field usage rules are explicit.

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

Deploy Server