checkout_transactionRetrieves a single Booksy Biz transaction by ID, including items, payments, tips, and discounts; set fresh to skip the local cache.
One transaction with items, payments, tips and discounts.
| 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 fully covered. The description adds that the returned record bundles items, payments, tips and discounts, which is genuinely useful content context but stops short of noting the cache-bypass behavior implied by the 'fresh' parameter.
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?
One short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than tight — there is no leading verb or scope statement to front-load. Brevity here costs clarity.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents; it partially does so by naming items, payments, tips and discounts. However, for a single-record lookup it omits what happens when the transactionId does not exist and does not clarify the effect of 'fresh'.
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 both parameters (transactionId, fresh) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about identifier format or what 'fresh' changes about the result.
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 is a noun phrase, not a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer 'fetch' from the name. It does implicitly distinguish itself from the sibling checkout_transactions by saying 'One transaction', but the purpose is only weakly articulated.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus checkout_transactions, checkout_last_receipt, or payment_basket. The singular-vs-plural contrast is only hinted at by the word 'One'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.