get_checkout_sessionRetrieve a checkout session by its cs_… ID to inspect payment checkout details and status. Use it when you need to look up a specific session for payment follow-up or troubleshooting.
Retrieve a checkout session.
Retrieve a checkout session by id (cs_…).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The checkout session id (`cs_…`). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on error behavior for expired or unknown sessions, no auth or scope requirements, no pagination or expansion concerns.
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?
The body is a near-verbatim restatement of the title followed by a second sentence that repeats the first with the id detail appended. Two sentences that say the same thing waste space rather than front-loading useful information.
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 tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is minimally sufficient to call correctly. It falls short of complete because the sibling disambiguation an agent needs at selection time is absent.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema with the same `cs_…` format. The description merely repeats that format, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field; baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a checkout session') and the 'cs_…' prefix hints that lookup is by session id. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_checkout_session_by_reference, which is exactly the alternative an agent must choose between.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites such as whether the session must be unexpired. The id-vs-reference distinction with get_checkout_session_by_reference is left entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.