get_product_purchaseRetrieve the purchase status of an in-app product using package name, product ID, and purchase token to verify transactions.
Get the status of an in-app product purchase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | In-app product SKU | |
| package_name | Yes | App package name | |
| purchase_token | Yes | The purchase token from the client app |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get the status' accurately implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful context given sibling operations that acknowledge or consume purchases. However, it adds little beyond the name and does not disclose any operational details such as response semantics or prerequisites beyond the schema.
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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple status lookup and front-loads the core action and resource.
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?
The tool is simple, parameters are fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the presence of get_product_purchase_v2 and related purchase lifecycle siblings creates a routing gap that the description does not address, making it not fully complete for an agent operating in this large sibling set.
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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the three parameters (product_id, package_name, purchase_token). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline rule, this is acceptable when the schema carries the load.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of an in-app product purchase'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling get_product_purchase_v2, so an agent may not know which variant to choose based on the description alone.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_product_purchase_v2, acknowledge_product_purchase, consume_product_purchase, or get_order. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and schema, which is insufficient for choosing correctly among many purchase-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.