ReturnRadar MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_purchase

Save a reviewed purchase with confirmed product, merchant, date, amount, and policy details to track returns, refunds, and warranty deadlines.

Instructions

Save a reviewed purchase. Do not invent terms. Extracted fields need confirmation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "purchase": "<purchase>"
    },
    "name": "add_purchase"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`purchase`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds data-quality expectations ('Do not invent terms', 'Extracted fields need confirmation'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. But it doesn't clarify what happens if fields are unconfirmed or what 'reviewed' entails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loads the purpose before the cautions. It contains no filler, though the fragmentary style leaves some ambiguity that a slightly fuller sentence could resolve.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex write tool with a nested purchase object and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It omits required-field guidance, how confirmation should be represented, and how it differs from update_purchase. Output schema and annotations cover some ground, but not enough to compensate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter-level semantics. It mentions 'terms' and 'fields' only generically, so an agent receives no help understanding the nested purchase object or its many fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Save a reviewed purchase', which states a verb and resource. However, 'save' is ambiguous between create and update, and the sibling update_purchase exists, so it does not clearly distinguish the operation. The qualifier 'reviewed' is also unexplained.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by saying 'Do not invent terms' and 'Extracted fields need confirmation', which suggests the tool should only be called with confirmed data. It does not name alternatives like update_purchase or explain when-not-to-use, leaving the guidance implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server