foran_cart_viewDisplays the customer's current Foran cart for Mart or Bites, including line totals and subtotal, so users can review items before checkout.
Show the customer's current Foran cart for Mart or Bites, with line totals and subtotal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | No | mart = groceries and daily needs; bites = restaurant food. | mart |
| session_key | Yes | The session_key returned by foran_login. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by saying what comes back (line totals and subtotal), which matters because there is no output schema, and by tying the result to the logged-in customer's session.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the module scope and return content packed in. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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?
For a two-parameter, fully described, read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, scope, and return contents. It could mention behavior for an empty cart or an expired session_key, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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%, with the module enum values already explained ('mart = groceries and daily needs; bites = restaurant food') and session_key tied to foran_login. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond restating the module scope, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Show the customer's current Foran cart') and scopes it to the two modules, Mart or Bites. The read-only 'view' framing separates it from foran_cart_add/update/remove without naming them explicitly.
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 read-only nature implies this is the inspection step before modifying or checking out, but the description never states when to call it versus foran_cart_add, foran_cart_update, or foran_place_order. Usage is inferable from the verb and siblings rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.