jumbo_list_receiptsList recent Jumbo supermarket receipts with date, store location, and transaction ID. Use pagination to browse past purchases.
List recent Jumbo supermarket store receipts (kassabonnen) with date, store location, and transaction ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 0) | |
| page_size | No | Number of receipts to return (default 10) |
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"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / page / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of each returned item (date, store location, transaction ID), which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or result limits beyond what the schema notes.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, parenthetical clarification, and returned fields. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is the lack of routing against the sibling receipt-fetching tools.
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 (page, page_size) are fully documented with defaults and bounds in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (Jumbo supermarket store receipts, with the Dutch term 'kassabonnen' as a helpful synonym), plus the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools jumbo_search_receipts or jumbo_get_receipt_details, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite jumbo_search_receipts and jumbo_get_receipt_details sitting in the sibling list. The word 'recent' hints at a recency scope, but no exclusions or selection conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.