list_voided_purchasesRetrieve voided purchases (refunds, chargebacks) for an app package. Identify financial disputes and take corrective action.
List voided purchases (refunds, chargebacks).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results (default: 100) | |
| package_name | Yes | App package name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation and the parenthetical clarifies what counts as voided, but it does not mention pagination, date windows, authorization, or any other behavioral constraints.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes, and the parenthetical adds clarifying terminology without unnecessary detail.
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 input schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple list tool, the description plus schema is largely sufficient, though it does not help disambiguate from purchase-related sibling tools.
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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents package_name and max_results. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline 3.
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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('voided purchases'), and the parenthetical '(refunds, chargebacks)' adds useful meaning. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related purchase/refund siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 prefer this tool over similar siblings like get_product_purchase or refund_order. There are no prerequisites, filters, or alternative-selection hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.