Retrieve purchase records, document metadata, policy evidence, and confirmed, tentative, or unknown return, refund, or warranty deadlines by purchase ID.
Get purchase, document metadata, policy evidence, and confirmed/tentative/unknown deadlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase_id | Yes |
| 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, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that deadlines are classified as confirmed/tentative/unknown, a useful data-confidence trait, but says nothing about permissions or behavior on a missing/invalid ID.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated outputs are dense but each item earns its place. Slightly list-heavy for a single sentence, but efficient.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose and content well; the only real gap is the undocumented purchase_id semantics.
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?
The single purchase_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its format, source, or expected values. Beyond implying that the ID selects the purchase to fetch, it adds nothing to the schema.
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 (Get) plus resource (purchase) and enumerates the returned facets (document metadata, policy evidence, deadlines). It reads clearly against the list-style sibling get_my_purchases, though it never names a sibling to differentiate 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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_my_purchases or get_warranty_status. The intended usage (fetch details for one known purchase) is only implied by the required purchase_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.