melra_receiptRetrieve action receipts and execution certificates by task or receipt ID to verify policy-governed agent actions and support recovery after interruptions.
Retrieve action receipts and the execution certificate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | No | ||
| receiptId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens with zero arguments, whether both IDs may be supplied together, or what an 'execution certificate' contains.
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 with the verb front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is concise but underspecified rather than complete, so it cannot score higher.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what comes back (receipt contents, certificate fields) and how the two optional lookup keys relate. Neither is present, leaving key caller questions unanswered.
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% for two UUID parameters, and the description never mentions taskId or receiptId. It does not clarify whether the caller should pass one or the other or both, nor what each lookup key returns, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and specific resources ('action receipts and the execution certificate'), which is clearer than the title's generic 'Read MELRA evidence'. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like melra_task_status or melra_workflow_status, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or what alternative covers the same need. With ten sibling tools in the MELRA family, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.