cash_registersRetrieve register records and check whether each is open or closed, with pagination and cache bypass options.
Cash registers and their open or closed state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful data context by saying it returns open/closed state, but it does not explain pagination behavior, caching semantics, or what the returned state means.
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?
The description is short and waste-free, but it is an under-specified fragment rather than a well-structured definition. It lacks the verb and scope information an agent would need before invoking the tool.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool, annotations and schema cover safety and pagination, but the description still leaves important gaps: it does not state a clear action, nor does it clarify the difference from `cash_register` and `cash_register_operations`. With no output schema, the description should do more to explain what the returned state represents.
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 100%, so the `page`, `per_page`, and `fresh` parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 identifies the resource (cash registers) and adds that it exposes open/closed state, which implies a listing of registers. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not distinguish this tool from the singular `cash_register` or `cash_register_operations` siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than `cash_register` or `cash_register_operations`. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.