rappi_get_order_receiptFetch receipts for a specific Rappi order while protecting privacy through redaction. Choose summary, structured, or raw output in Markdown or JSON.
Receipt for one order. Identity redacted by default. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | ||
| privacy_mode | No | ||
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Identity redacted by default,' a behavioral trait not captured in annotations, and reaffirms 'Read-only' consistently. This provides useful context without contradiction.
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 very concise, using two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the redaction note efficiently. While it could be longer to convey more detail, it avoids unnecessary verbosity for a simple read operation.
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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the receipt contains, how privacy_mode affects output, or what response_format options do. An agent calling this tool would lack critical information about expected behavior and output.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention order_id, privacy_mode, or response_format. The only hint is 'Identity redacted by default,' which implicitly relates to privacy_mode but is insufficient. An agent cannot determine how to use these parameters correctly from the description.
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 specific purpose: 'Receipt for one order.' This clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a receipt for a given order. It is not a tautology and adds the useful detail of identity redaction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rappi_get_order_invoice, so it misses the full distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rappi_get_order_invoice or rappi_get_order_status. The description does not mention selection criteria or contrast with other receipt/order tools. 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.