UberSync MCP Server

Get Ride Receipt

get_ride_receipt

Retrieve a completed ride's receipt with route, fare, fees, total, payment method, driver, vehicle, and date. Use the ride ID from booking to access trip details and verify charges.

Instructions

Return the completed ride route, fare, fees, total, payment method, driver, vehicle, and date.

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": {
      "rideId": "<rideId>"
    },
    "name": "get_ride_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rideId`	Yes	Ride ID returned by book_ride

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-only operation through 'Return' and scopes to completed rides, but it does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or what happens for an invalid or unknown rideId.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and direct object, with no filler. Every listed field is relevant to the receipt concept, making the definition compact and readable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool, the description adequately covers the returned data and the completed-ride condition, especially since there is no output schema. It falls short only in not addressing error/permission behavior or distinguishing itself from related receipt/fare tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; rideId is already documented as 'Ride ID returned by book_ride'. The description adds no additional parameter format, constraints, or context, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Return') and resource ('completed ride receipt'), and enumerates the fields returned: route, fare, fees, total, payment method, driver, vehicle, and date. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling tools get_trip_receipt or get_fare_breakdown.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'completed ride' provides a clear precondition that this tool is intended for completed rides only. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_trip_receipt or get_fare_breakdown, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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