medusa-mcp

Receive return

receive_return

Records that returned items arrived and restores them to stock. Defaults to all requested items and the order's only open return unless items or return_id are given.

Instructions

Records that returned items arrived; they go back to stock. Without 'items' receives everything requested. Without 'return_id' uses the order's only open return.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "receive_return"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Internal note
`items`	No	Defaults to every requested item
`order`	No	Order ID or order number (to find the return)
`return_id`	No
`notify_customer`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds a key side effect beyond them: received items are restocked. It does not, however, disclose the notify_customer behavior or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and consequence, then two tightly-scoped conditional clauses. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary effect and the two most important defaulting rules. Only the notify_customer side effect and the role of 'order' vs 'return_id' resolution are left unaddressed.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description usefully explains the defaulting behavior of 'items' and 'return_id'. It leaves the semantics of 'note', 'order', and 'notify_customer' (default true) to the schema/reader inference.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Records that returned items arrived') and adds the concrete consequence ('they go back to stock'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create_return, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides conditional rules for two parameters (defaults when 'items' or 'return_id' are omitted), which is helpful operational guidance, but says nothing about when to prefer this over create_return or other return-related siblings.

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