Search recent Jumbo receipts for a specific grocery item by keyword to confirm past purchases and locate matching line items across receipts.
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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and this is a low-risk read operation. It adds the meaningful qualifier that the search is limited to 'recent' receipts, but says nothing about authentication (jumbo_login exists as a sibling), result limits, matching semantics, 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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and spends its remaining words on scope and examples. Every clause earns its place and there is 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is searched but not the shape of the result (matching line items vs. receipts, whether matches are aggregated per receipt, or ordering). The output schema does not exist to fill that gap, leaving moderate incompleteness.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's examples do clarify that the query accepts Dutch product keywords and multi-word phrases, which is a modest addition over 'Product keyword to search for', but it says nothing extra about max_receipts.
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+resource ('search ... receipts') with a clear scope: grocery items purchased across recent Jumbo receipts by keyword. The examples ('havermelk', 'bio ei', 'skyr') pin down what a query looks like. It differentiates itself implicitly from jumbo_list_receipts and jumbo_get_receipt_details, but never names a sibling to make the distinction explicit.
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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for finding whether/where an item was bought, as opposed to looking up a single receipt. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against jumbo_search_products (catalog) or jumbo_list_receipts (chronological listing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.