Search and filter local purchases by status, merchant, category, or date range, with paginated results to track receipts and return or warranty deadlines.
Search actual local purchases with filters and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| merchant | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paginated, which is modest but useful context beyond the annotations.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing is wasted, though 'actual local' is slightly puzzling phrasing.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for an 8-parameter filtered search with zero schema documentation, the description omits which filters exist and how paging behaves. That is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load, yet it only says 'filters and pagination' generically. It never mentions the status enum values, date_from/date_to, category, merchant, or search, leaving the agent to guess what can actually be filtered.
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 states a clear verb (Search) and resource (local purchases), and 'with filters and pagination' signals it is a list/browse operation, which implicitly distinguishes it from get_purchase_details. However, it does not name any sibling or explain the odd 'actual local' qualifier.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_purchase_details, get_warranty_status, or get_upcoming_deadlines. The agent must infer that this is the general listing tool from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.