jumbo_get_shopping_listRetrieve the user's Jumbo shopping list to check if it is active and inspect every item, including ID, term, SKU, and completion status.
Get the user's Jumbo shopping list ('lijstje'): whether it is active and every item (id, term, sku, completed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's added value is the disclosed return shape (active status plus per-item fields), which is genuinely beyond the annotation. It does not cover auth requirements, empty-list behaviour, or pagination, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource and then the returned fields; no padding, no restatement of the title.
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 usefully compensates by listing the return contents, and there are no parameters to document. It could be more complete by noting whether an empty/absent list is returned or that a login is required, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level; the baseline of 4 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource (the user's Jumbo shopping list, with the Dutch alias 'lijstje') and enumerates the payload (active flag, items with id/term/sku/completed). An agent can tell this read tool apart from the sibling add/remove/set mutations without opening a schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the getter name and the alias, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. authentication via jumbo_login), and no statement of when to prefer this over jumbo_get_basket or the receipt/balance siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.