YC GraphQL MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

yc_mutation_receipts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a durable mutation receipt by ID or list recent receipts to verify committed GraphQL changes; mutation variables and result data are not persisted.

Instructions

Read a durable mutation receipt by ID, or list recent receipts. Mutation variables and result data are not persisted.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "yc_mutation_receipts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`receiptId`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`untrustedContent`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond them: receipts are 'durable' while 'mutation variables and result data are not persisted', which tells an agent not to expect argument or payload data back — an important expectation-setter. It stops short of explaining retention windows or not-found behaviour.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed immediately by the most consequential caveat about missing payload data. Nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. However, for a two-mode tool with zero parameter documentation, the description leaves mode interaction, pagination/limit behaviour, and failure semantics (unknown receiptId) unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter load and it only partly does. 'By ID' maps to receiptId and 'recent receipts' hints that limit governs the list, but the default of 20, the 1-100 range, and whether limit is ignored in single-receipt mode are left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('durable mutation receipt') and enumerates both modes: fetch one by ID or list recent ones. That makes it clearly distinct from mutation-execution siblings such as yc_commit_mutation, though it never names an alternative to route against.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: supplying an ID selects the single-receipt mode, omitting it selects the list mode. There is no explicit statement of when this tool is the right choice versus other read tools (yc_list_operations, yc_status) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.