Retrieve details for a single Gumroad sale using its sale ID and access token, so you can inspect or process an individual transaction.
Get details for a single Gumroad sale by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sale_id | Yes | Sale ID | |
| access_token | Yes | Gumroad access token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / properties / access_tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Gumroad access token",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / api_keyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Gumroad access token",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "api_key",
- "sale_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "access_token",
+ "sale_id"
+]v0.1.9v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavior such as auth requirements, error behavior for invalid IDs, or rate limits.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity here is appropriate, though it leaves little room for the routing and parameter nuance the tool could use.
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?
The tool is a simple read lookup with fully documented params, so the description is not badly incomplete. But with no output schema, the agent gets no hint of what a sale record contains or what happens on a missing ID.
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% for both parameters (sale_id, access_token), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes that sale_id is the lookup key, adding no format or sourcing detail.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a single Gumroad sale') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which implicitly separates it from gumroad_list_sales. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, so it falls just short of 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by ID' signals you need a known sale ID, but the description never states when to prefer this over gumroad_list_sales or what to do when you don't have an ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.