Retrieve pre-filled receipt email content with default recipient, subject, and body text so receipt emails can be prepared without manually filling templates.
Get pre-filled email content for a receipt including default recipient, subject, and body text with template variables already substituted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the receipt | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides configured default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that content is pre-filled and template variables are already substituted, which is useful, but it does not disclose what happens if the receipt has no configured defaults or if the receipt UUID is invalid.
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 description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and specifies the returned content. There is no redundant or wasted text.
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 simple read-only getter with no output schema, the description explains enough about the return value (default recipient, subject, body with substituted variables). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the companyId override or behavior when defaults are absent, but the core need is covered.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both uuid and companyId are fully documented in the schema. The description does not mention parameters or the companyId override, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; this is the baseline 3 case.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pre-filled email content for a receipt') and enumerates the main returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from send/history siblings, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as receipts_email or receipts_email_history. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Get' and the resource 'email defaults'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.