Retrieve a checkout by its ID to view its payment URL, expiry, and custom data.
Get a specific checkout by ID, including URL, expiry, and custom data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated related resources to include (e.g. 'store,variant') | |
| checkoutId | Yes | The checkout ID (a UUID, as returned by ls_list_checkouts / ls_create_checkout) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / properties / checkoutId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The checkout ID"New value: +"The checkout ID (a UUID, as returned by ls_list_checkouts / ls_create_checkout)"Input schema / properties / checkoutId / patternPrevious value: -"^[1-9]\\d*$"New value: +"^[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$"v0.10.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by indicating the response will include URL, expiry, and custom data, but it does not discuss errors, authorization, or edge cases.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then highlights the most useful returned fields. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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 operation with one required parameter and strong annotations, this is nearly complete. It identifies the input, the core return contents, and the read-only nature, though it could briefly mention related-resource inclusion via the optional `include` parameter.
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 100%, so both checkoutId and include are already documented in the schema. The description mentions payload fields but does not add meaningful parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific checkout by ID') and names key returned content ('URL, expiry, and custom data'). It is clearly distinguished from listing checkouts by stressing 'specific' and 'by ID'.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you already have a checkout ID and need one checkout. However, it does not explicitly name ls_list_checkouts as the alternative for fetching multiple checkouts, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.