get_cartRetrieve a retailer's current cart, including item labels, quantities, unit prices, line totals, and the overall total, to review what is ready for checkout.
Reads the retailer's actual cart: lines (id, label, quantity, line total, unit price) and total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store | Yes | retailer (see list_stores) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | Yes | ||
| store | Yes | ||
| total_eur | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency profile are covered. The description adds the returned content (line fields and total), but that overlaps with the output schema, and it says nothing about empty-cart behavior, auth/store-selection requirements, or failures on a live retailer call.
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 verb and object, with the field list kept compact. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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 read-only, one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and open-world access, the description is close to sufficient. The only real gaps are edge-case behavior (empty cart, unselected store), which are minor.
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 a single parameter with an enum and 100% schema description coverage pointing to list_stores, so the schema carries the meaning fully. The description adds nothing about the store parameter, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome when coverage is complete.
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 ('Reads') and resource ('cart') and qualifies it as 'the retailer's actual cart', which signals live retailer state rather than a derived view. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, compare_carts, so it falls short of a 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: the word 'actual' hints this fetches the live cart as opposed to the comparative view in compare_carts, and the surrounding siblings (add_to_cart, set_quantity, remove_from_cart) are obviously mutations. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.