Skip to main content
Glama
ProjectMakersDE

horizOn MCP Server

Official
by ProjectMakersDE
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Original Marketplace Receipt

horizon_get_marketplace_operation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads an authorized marketplace operation receipt to reconcile the original intent behind a marketplace action.

Instructions

Reads one authorized listing or original own operation receipt. Use when: explicit marketplace actions after reading horizon://docs/marketplace. Not for: automatic trading, price polling or generated replacement operations. Use horizon_get_marketplace_operation to reconcile the original intent. Requires: userId and the player's session: sign in with horizon_signin_email or horizon_signin_anonymous and pass its accessToken as sessionToken. Side effects: Read only. Missing receipts never authorize replacement IDs; retained receipts do not regrant items or currency. Returns: {receipt,serverTime} Errors: 409 conflicts require explicit reconciliation, never fresh revisions or operation IDs on an unknown outcome. Missing OPERATION_NOT_FOUND does not prove nonexecution. 422 capacity/balance/daily-limit errors preserve atomicity. 429 schedules no retry. Full Inbox returns pending without losing the original item. 401 means the session is missing or expired: sign in again and retry with the new accessToken. 403 for a session means the token belongs to another user: pass the userId that signed in. Needs HORIZON_API_KEY. Every failure returns an error result (isError) with the HTTP status and body: a 401 that horizon_test_connection also returns means HORIZON_API_KEY is wrong, 429 means the account's per-minute rate limit was reached (wait a minute, then retry).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesActive player matching the current session and project
operationIdYesOriginal canonical lowercase UUID
sessionTokenYesCurrent accessToken sent only as Bearer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral constraints: missing receipts do not authorize replacement IDs, retained receipts do not regrant items or currency, and 409/422/429/401/403 failure semantics are explained. It also documents authentication requirements and side-effect expectations in substantial detail.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with useful sections (Use when, Not for, Requires, Side effects, Returns, Errors), which helps scanning. However, it is very long and dense with error prose, and the circular instruction to use the same tool for reconciliation is confusing rather than helpful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex authenticated receipt lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the required context: auth flow, return shape, side effects, nuanced failure semantics, and rate-limit behavior. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret common error outcomes.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so the schema carries the base parameter definitions. The description adds useful auth context by explaining that userId must match the signed-in session and that the accessToken from horizon_signin_email or horizon_signin_anonymous is passed as sessionToken. It is slightly less detailed about operationId beyond referencing the original receipt.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reads one authorized listing or original own operation receipt.' It is clear enough to distinguish this receipt lookup from adjacent marketplace tools, but the self-referential instruction to 'Use horizon_get_marketplace_operation to reconcile the original intent' weakens differentiation from sibling retry/reconciliation tools.

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?

It provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' boundaries, including exclusions around automatic trading and price polling. However, it does not name the relevant alternative sibling tools for reconciliation, and the alternative it does name is itself, which reduces practical routing value.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools