Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aureon MCP

Aureon MCP

Official
by buildaureon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

aureon_run_receipt_verification_demo

Runs a receipt verification demo by restoring a receipt, validating it, and performing a settlement lookup.

Instructions

Run receipt → verification demo (restore + validate receipt + settlement lookup)

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": "aureon_run_receipt_verification_demo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.16

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the run involves a 'restore', but never states whether that mutates persistent state, whether it is idempotent or reversible, whether auth is required, or what 'demo' implies about side effects (ephemeral vs real). For a tool that orchestrates a restore plus settlement lookup, these are material omissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single line with the action front-loaded and the internal steps parenthesized – no wasted words. The arrow notation ('receipt → verification') is slightly cryptic but the parenthetical resolves it.

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?

For a zero-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the demo does in three steps, which is the minimum viable. It is incomplete on the two things an agent most needs: side effects/mutation risk and what comes back after running it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema, which is empty at 100% coverage. Baseline 4 applies; no param-specific detail is expected or missing.

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 names a specific action ('Run ... demo') and unpacks what the demo actually does: restore, validate receipt, and settlement lookup. That enumeration distinguishes it from the bare name and from sibling get_*_flow tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with aureon_get_receipt_verification_flow or the other run_*_demo runners.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to run this demo versus the sibling aureon_get_receipt_verification_flow or aureon_validate_receipt, nor any note on prerequisites, environment, or whether it should be run against production data. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools