sale_getRetrieve a complete bill of sale by its BOS number, including buyer and seller, item identifiers, price, terms, and draft or finalized signing status.
Read one bill of sale in full by its BOS number: both parties, the item and its identifiers, price, terms, and whether it is still a draft or the finalized signing copy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sale | Yes | The bill of sale id, e.g. BOS-2026-0001 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.21.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the record can be a draft or the finalized signing copy (state awareness). However, it says nothing about read-only nature, permission/authentication requirements, or behavior for an unknown/archived id.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key retrieval verb leads, followed by the identifier, then the returned fields. Nothing is wasted.
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-param read tool with no output schema, the description adequately telegraphs the returned fields and draft/finalized state. It is nearly complete but omits error/not-found behavior and access constraints, which would round it out.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with an example format (BOS-2026-0001). The description adds the semantic meaning of 'BOS number' and that it must be singular, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one bill of sale), identified by BOS number, and enumerates the full field set returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like sale_list (which lists many) and sale_summary (which presumably condenses).
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?
The phrase 'in full' implies this is the verbose/single-record retrieval path, and naming the BOS number as the key implies how to call it. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., 'use sale_summary for a condensed view'). Usable but not routing-grade.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.