Retrieve payment transactions for a My Hot Lunchbox account, showing date, amount, and item paid for. Filter by ordering period or student to review purchase history.
List payment transactions on the account — date, amount, and what was paid for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Ordering period to scope to, from mhlb_get_cart_tabs. | |
| studentId | No | Limit to one student. |
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a hint about the returned fields, but it does not disclose default scoping, how period/student filtering affects results, ordering, or pagination.
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?
A single sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase earns its place by adding information about the resource or the returned content.
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 and read-only, and the schema explains both optional parameters. However, with no output schema, the description leaves the default scope and exact result shape less explicit than it could be, making it adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Both parameters have 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains period and studentId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'payment transactions' and enumerates the returned fields (date, amount, and what was paid for). This clearly distinguishes it from singular/inspection siblings like mhlb_get_transaction and mhlb_print_transaction.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. It simply states the operation, leaving an agent to infer from the name that this is the enumerating tool versus mhlb_get_transaction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.