digikala-mcp

Read Account Cart

read_account_cart

Read-only

Retrieve the cart for the account bound to a provided session token, avoiding desktop keyring fallback.

Instructions

Read only the account bound to this token; never use the desktop keyring fallback.

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": {
      "session_token": "<session_token>"
    },
    "name": "read_account_cart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_token`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	No
`observed_at`	No
`total_items`	Yes
`items_total_rial`	Yes
`shipping_price_rial`	No
`has_unsupported_extras`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

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. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the auth constraint (only the token-bound account) and a forbidden fallback path, but it says nothing about errors, empty carts, or pagination.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the scoping rule is placed first. It is structurally sound, though brevity shades into under-specification rather than optimal economy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the description still omits the resource being read and does not distinguish this tool from read_cart or get_account_cart_operation, leaving the account-scoping model unclear for a one-parameter, zero-coverage schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, session_token, which the description never explains or characterizes. The baseline 4 for zero-param tools does not apply, and no compensating detail is provided.

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 description implies a read operation scoped to the token's account, but never states the resource: it is the account's cart. With a sibling read_cart present, an agent cannot tell from this text what object is actually returned.

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?

"Never use the desktop keyring fallback" gives a clear negative constraint, which is useful. However, there is no positive when-to-use guidance and no explicit routing against the sibling read_cart, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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

Deploy Server