Retrieves a single Migros digital receipt as HTML or JSON by receipt ID; requires login and returns the exact gateway response for viewing or processing.
One digital receipt (HTML/JSON as the gateway returns it). Requires login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add two useful facts beyond the schema: authentication is required, and the payload is returned as raw HTML/JSON from the gateway. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids or whether the format varies, which leaves notable gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
Two short clauses with the resource stated first and the auth constraint second; nothing is padded. It is slightly too terse to be maximally useful, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the auth requirement plus the raw-HTML/JSON caveat cover the essentials for a one-parameter read. The missing provenance of receipt_id and the lack of sibling routing keep it only adequate.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain receipt_id. It never says where the id comes from, whether it is the same id used by receipts/receipt_products, or its format, so it adds essentially no meaning beyond the bare property name.
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?
"One digital receipt" names the resource and scopes it to a single item, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling receipts (list) tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb like "fetch" or "retrieve" and never names receipt_products or order_detail as related tools.
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 only usage guidance is "Requires login." There is no statement of when to call this versus receipts (to get an id first) or receipt_products (for line items), and no mention that receipt_id must come from the receipts listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.