get_shiftRetrieve complete details for a single cash register shift, including status, cashier, balance, tax totals, opening/closing transactions, and the Z-report when closed.
Returns one shift (зміна) in full: status, cashier, cash register, balance, per-tax totals, the opening and closing transactions and the embedded Z-report once the shift is closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shift_id | Yes | Shift id (UUID). |
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, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the payload is complete rather than partial, and the embedded Z-report is only present once the shift is closed, which is a conditional-state detail the annotations cannot convey.
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 preamble or filler. The long field enumeration is dense but each item is informative about the return shape, so it earns its space; it could have been trimmed slightly for a short description field.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so thoroughly, including the conditional Z-report. What is missing is any guidance on usage relative to sibling shift tools and on the failure case for an unknown 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?
There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage (shift_id, UUID with a regex pattern), so the schema fully carries parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about shift_id, its format, or where to obtain it, which is the baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Specific verb (returns) plus resource (one shift) with an enumerated payload: status, cashier, cash register, balance, per-tax totals, opening/closing transactions, Z-report. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_current_shift or list_shifts, so the by-id retrieval scope is only implied.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. An agent must infer that this fetches a single shift by id and that get_current_shift or list_shifts cover the other cases; nothing in the text routes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.