Retrieve detailed line items, unit prices, discounts, total, payment method, and Extra's points for a specific Jumbo receipt using its transaction ID.
Get detailed line items, unit prices, discounts, total, payment method, and Extra's points for a specific Jumbo receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_id | Yes | The transactionId of the receipt (from jumbo_list_receipts) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, and it usefully discloses the fields returned, but it says nothing about authentication, what happens when a transaction_id is not found, or any rate/error behavior. For a simple getter this is adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the enumerated return fields earn their place because there is no output schema to convey them elsewhere.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and with only one required parameter the input side is simple. However, with no annotations and no mention of failure or auth behavior, it stops short of being fully complete for an unannotated tool.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents transaction_id and its source. The description adds no format, prefix, or validation detail beyond what the schema supplies, making this the baseline case.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('receipt details') and even enumerates the returned fields (line items, unit prices, discounts, total, payment method, Extra's points), which lets an agent distinguish it from jumbo_list_receipts and jumbo_search_receipts. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is only implied by the 'specific Jumbo receipt' scoping.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus jumbo_list_receipts or jumbo_search_receipts. The only hint about provenance lives in the schema ('from jumbo_list_receipts'), not in the description, so the agent must infer the retrieval workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.