Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chrischall

myhotlunchbox-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mhlb_print_transaction

Generate a printable receipt PDF for a specific transaction by passing its transaction ID, so the document reflects the account’s real data.

Instructions

Generate the printable receipt PDF for one transaction. Pass the transaction id from mhlb_list_transactions; the server fetches that transaction’s detail record and has the endpoint render it, so the receipt always reflects the account’s real data.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inlineNoReturn the PDF as base64 in the result instead of writing it to a file. Default false.
filenameNoOutput filename. Defaults to "Transaction.pdf".
isCreditTypeNoRender as a credit rather than a payment. Default false.
transactionIdYesTransaction id (the `id` field from mhlb_list_transactions).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.7
    • removedInput schema / properties / transaction
      Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": {},
-  "description": "The transaction detail object, as returned by mhlb_get_transaction.",
-  "propertyNames": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / transactionId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Transaction id (the `id` field from mhlb_list_transactions).",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "transaction"
-]New value: +[
+  "transactionId"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, and the description adds real value by explaining the server-side fetch-and-render flow and that the receipt reflects live account data. It does not explain the filesystem write implied by readOnlyHint=false, which is the one behavioral trait left unaddressed.

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 sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the follow-up sentence adds the workflow context the agent needs. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers the input workflow and the rendering behavior well, and the schema documents the inline/filename output options. It stops short of describing what the caller gets back when inline=false (a written file path, presumably) and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description links transactionId back to mhlb_list_transactions, but that is already stated in the schema's own parameter description, and inline/filename/isCreditType get no extra explanation here.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('printable receipt PDF'), and scope ('for one transaction'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_transaction, print_orders, and print_calendar without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description routes the agent to mhlb_list_transactions as the source of the transaction id, giving clear usage context. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over the sibling get_transaction or print_orders, so no explicit exclusions are stated.

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