yolfi_checkout_sessions_getRetrieve a Checkout Session by its ycs_ ID to inspect its current payment state for the authenticated organization.
Read a Checkout Session belonging to the authenticated organization and inspect its payment state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Checkout Session public ID returned by create, beginning with ycs_. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authentication boundary and purchase-state inspection intent, but does not disclose return shape, pagination, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.
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 with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to identifying the operation.
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-parameter read operation whose annotations already cover safety and whose schema fully documents the ID, the description is largely complete. The absent output schema is partially mitigated by the phrase 'inspect its payment state,' which signals the return focus, though more explicit return-value context would improve completeness.
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%, and the input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter including its ycs_ prefix format and origin. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Checkout Session') and adds scope ('belonging to the authenticated organization') plus what is inspected ('payment state'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling create tool or other get/list tools.
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 'belonging to the authenticated organization' clarifies the required auth context, and the purpose implies retrieval of an existing session. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no excluded cases, and no named alternative among siblings such as yolfi_checkout_sessions_create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.