Retrieve unpaid lunch cart items, filtered by order status, ordering period, or individual student.
Get the shopping cart — lunches added but not yet paid for. Filter by order status and ordering period, or narrow to one student.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Ordering period value from mhlb_get_cart_tabs. | |
| studentId | No | Limit to one student. | |
| orderStatus | No | Status tab to show, e.g. from mhlb_get_cart_tabs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds value by specifying scoping (unpaid lunches, filterable) and the concept of 'cart' vs paid orders. It does not contradict annotations. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the core purpose and then lists filters. No wasted words; every phrase earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema and simple parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to know what it returns (cart contents) and when to invoke it. It does not detail return format, but that's acceptable for a simple get operation with readOnlyHint.
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 all three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond schema, but the schema already covers semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear purpose: retrieving the shopping cart (lunches not yet paid for) with filtering options. It distinguishes from siblings like mhlb_list_transactions or mhlb_get_order by focusing on the cart. However, it does not explicitly name siblings it is not, so it could be clearer in differentiation.
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 description implies when to use: when needing unpaid lunches in the cart, with optional filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives (e.g., use mhlb_get_order for paid orders). Lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.