Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
etsy-clean-mcp

etsy-clean-mcp

by phobicdotno
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_receipt

Read-only

Retrieve a single Etsy order by receipt ID, including items, totals, buyer message, shipping address, and shipment details.

Instructions

One order: items, totals, buyer message, shipping address, shipments.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "receipt_id": "<receipt_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receipt_idYesReceipt id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. In exchange the description discloses what the response contains (items, totals, buyer message, shipping address, shipments), which is real added value, but it says nothing about what happens when the receipt_id is unknown or whether data spans external systems.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One telegraphic clause, front-loaded on the resource and its contents, with nothing wasted. It is slightly too clipped to read as a complete sentence, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only lookup with annotations and a fully documented single parameter, the definition is nearly sufficient, and the enumeration of returned fields partly substitutes for the missing output schema. It still omits any behavioral edge cases or usage routing, which leaves a small but real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Optional schema coverage is 100% for the single receipt_id parameter, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no meaning beyond it – no id format, no source of the id (for example, from list_receipts) – so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The fragment 'One order: items, totals, buyer message, shipping address, shipments' identifies the resource and its contents, and the singular 'One order' implicitly distinguishes it from list_receipts. However, there is no verb and no complete statement of the action, so the purpose is conveyed only by inference from the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name list_receipts or any other sibling as the alternative for retrieving many orders. The single-vs-list distinction is left for the agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools