Errand Runs MCP Server

receipt

Retrieve a trip-day purchase summary listing what was bought, per-store subtotals, total paid, and remaining open-list items for after-the-fact closure.

Instructions

After-the-fact closure query: the receipt for one trip day (YYYY-MM-DD, default today). Lists what was bought, per-store subtotals, the total paid, and where the open list stands.

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does signal that this is a read-style query with no mutation and that it returns an aggregated, finalized view ("closure"). It discloses nothing about permissions, date-range limits, empty-day behavior, or whether totals are live or frozen, which is a real gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The definition is short and front-loaded with the tool's role ("After-the-fact closure query") before the parameter format and the returned contents. Every clause earns its place; only the parenthetical date/default detail interrupts the flow slightly.

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?

For a one-parameter read query with an output schema present, the description covers the essential unknowns: date format, default behavior, and a preview of what comes back. The lingering gap is the absence of any cross-reference to related tools (plan_run, tally, mark_bought), which an agent choosing between them would want.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only exposes a bare "bought_on" string with an empty default, so the description does the compensating work: it specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format and states that today is the default when omitted. That is meaningful meaning added beyond the schema for the single parameter; only minor edge cases (past vs. future dates) are left unstated.

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?

"After-the-fact closure query: the receipt for one trip day" names a specific verb-like operation (query a receipt) and the exact resource/scope (one trip day), and the enumeration of purchased items, subtotals, and totals makes the output shape concrete. It never names a sibling such as tally or list_items, so the agent must infer how this differs from those, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

"After-the-fact closure query" implies the tool is used once a day's activity is finished rather than during logging, which is genuine but indirect when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit exclusion (e.g., don't use this for an in-progress day; use tally/plan_run instead) and no alternative is named, so guidance remains implied.

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

Deploy Server