get_captureFetch a single Klarna order capture by order ID and capture ID; returns capture amounts in minor units.
Get one capture on a Klarna order by capture_id (amounts in minor units).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | Klarna order id (UUID), as returned at purchase. Not the merchant order number. | |
| capture_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail not in structured data — that amounts are in minor units — but says nothing about error cases, auth requirements, or lookup failure behavior.
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 no filler, and the minor-units caveat is tucked in a parenthetical rather than buried. It is lean to the point of being terse for a tool with an undocumented required parameter.
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 read-only getter with complete annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what is fetched, by which key, unit convention). It does not describe the returned capture's shape or error behavior, and one required parameter is undocumented anywhere.
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 only 50%: order_id is documented as a UUID (not merchant number) while capture_id has no schema description at all. The description only restates that lookup is by capture_id and that the order is a Klarna order, adding no format or constraint detail for the undocumented parameter.
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), resource (capture), and the key used to fetch it (capture_id) plus the owning entity (Klarna order). The singular 'one capture' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_captures, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names alternatives like list_captures or get_order. An agent must infer that this is the right tool only when it already holds a capture_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.