[security-preflight — static manifest, source and text security checks] Read a previously issued public, input-redacted receipt.
[security-preflight — static manifest, source and text security checks] Read a previously issued public, input-redacted receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one real behavioral fact: the receipt is 'public' and 'input-redacted', signalling that raw scanned inputs are not returned. It omits error behavior for an unknown or expired receipt_id, and says nothing about access control or retention.
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 compact sentence preceded by a scoping tag; nothing is wasted and the action is front-loaded after the suite prefix. It is arguably too terse given the unresolved parameter question, but it is not padded.
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 one-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and the redaction guarantee, which is the minimum viable bar. It leaves open how to obtain a receipt_id and what a lookup failure yields, which matters because the agent has no schema documentation to fall back on.
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?
There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing beyond the name 'receipt_id'. The description does not state the identifier's format, where it originates, or whether it is opaque, leaving the agent no way to construct a valid value from documentation alone.
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 verb ('Read') and resource ('a previously issued public, input-redacted receipt'), and the bracketed prefix scopes it to the security-preflight check suite, which distinguishes it from siblings like security_preflight and scan_source. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements, but the retrieval-vs-scan distinction is inferable.
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?
It says what is read but never when to call it versus security_preflight, scan_source, or screen_injection, nor what precondition produces a receipt in the first place. The agent must guess that a prior scan must have run and returned an identifier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.