jumbo_search_receiptsSearch recent Jumbo grocery receipts by product keyword to find specific items and past purchases.
Search for specific grocery items purchased across recent Jumbo receipts by keyword (e.g. 'havermelk', 'bio ei', 'skyr').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Product keyword to search for | |
| max_receipts | No | Maximum number of recent receipts to inspect (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: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description adds the scope, that searching spans 'recent' receipts, which is useful context. It does not describe result format, matching behavior, or what happens when nothing matches.
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 and resource first, followed by concrete examples. No filler.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a safety annotation, the description is adequate but thin. With no output schema, it could say more about what is returned (matching line items, receipt references) to fully orient the agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds keyword examples ('havermelk', 'bio ei', 'skyr'), giving a flavor of acceptable queries, but no format or syntax beyond that.
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?
Clear verb (search) plus resource (grocery items purchased across recent Jumbo receipts) and method (by keyword), with concrete examples. It is distinguishable from jumbo_search_products in spirit but never names or contrasts with siblings explicitly.
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?
The description implies its use case (finding items you bought) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like jumbo_search_products, jumbo_list_receipts, or jumbo_get_receipt_details. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.