checkout_last_receiptFetches the last receipt for a given Booksy transaction ID and lets you bypass the local cache to retrieve current receipt data.
The latest receipt of a transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| transactionId | Yes | Transaction id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not explain caching behavior, what 'latest' means in edge cases, or what the response contains. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity contributes to under-specification addressed in other dimensions rather than being a conciseness problem itself.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the 'latest receipt' returns—an object, an ID, a URL, or something else. It also omits any mention of the caching behavior implied by the fresh parameter. Given the many checkout-related siblings, the definition leaves too much for an agent to infer.
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%, and the schema already documents both transactionId and the fresh flag that skips the local cache. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond implying a transaction context. With the schema fully covering parameters, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (the latest receipt) and ties it to a transaction, which gives some specificity. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as checkout_transaction or payment_rows. An agent can infer that it retrieves something, but selection clarity is limited.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checkout_transaction, payment_rows, or any other sibling, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.