get_saleFetch a sale record by ID to inspect sale details; read-only and requires view_sales scope.
Get sale. Reviewed native GET /sales/:id; scope: view_sales. Read only; no local effect approval required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private profile label; never inherited credentials, ownership or scope proof. | |
| sale_id | Yes | Exact opaque provider ID, including native = padding. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the required OAuth scope (view_sales) and the native endpoint mapping, plus the note that no local effect approval is needed.
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?
Very short and front-loaded: action and endpoint first, then scope and safety. The telegraphic, semicolon-chained phrasing is slightly terse but wastes no words.
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 single-resource GET with no output schema, the description could state what a sale record contains or what a not-found/lack-of-scope response looks like. It covers auth scope but leaves the return shape entirely unspecified.
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 parameters (account, sale_id) are already fully documented including the opaque-ID and credential-inheritance caveats. The description adds only the implicit 'GET /sales/:id' mapping, which is marginal; 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?
States the specific verb+resource (get a single sale) and pins it to the native endpoint 'GET /sales/:id', which distinguishes it from list_sales. It doesn't explicitly contrast with other retrieval siblings, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
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?
Adds a prerequisite ('scope: view_sales') and the read-only/no-approval condition, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_sales or how it relates to mark_sale_as_shipped/refund_sale workflows, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.