Noticer Receipt Maker for MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

noticer_prepare_receipt

Idempotent

Prepare a post-handoff receipt check by defining the exact public JSON claim, expected value, and same-site control, then return the frozen scope and price for explicit run approval.

Instructions

Describe the destination state to check: the exact public JSON record (claim_id_path) that should show the result of the handed-off action, the expected value, and a known-good control on the same site. Only after owner authorization for public reads. Doesn't observe, charge or reserve an allowance.

    Only after owner authorization for these public reads. Inputs: a stable check_label and scope with
    claim_ref; questioned {url, extract, claim_id_path}; control {url, extract}; deadline_seconds;
    authorized_public_read=true. Both URLs must be public HTTPS JSON on the same host, with distinct
    paths and no credentials, query or fragment. The claim_ref must occur as a questioned path segment
    and not in the control path. Use a genuinely known-good control. Dotted paths support equality to a
    JSON scalar, for example extract '$.status == "shipped"' and claim_id_path '$.id'; this is not general
    JSONPath or code. deadline_seconds must be an integer from 20 through 120. Server validation is final.
    
    Returns the frozen scope, obligation hash, price and confirmation notice. No observation or payment
    occurs here; free allowance is not reserved. Show those terms and obtain separate explicit run approval.
    Reuse check_label with the identical scope after interruption; never create a new label to recover
    ambiguous preparation. No receipt is guaranteed for every failed request.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	Yes
`check_label`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2-dev.20261016Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it does not observe, charge, or reserve allowance; it returns frozen scope, obligation hash, price, and a confirmation notice; server validation is final; and no receipt is guaranteed for every failed request. It also explains idempotent recovery behavior by requiring reuse of the same check_label with identical scope after interruption. These details add substantial operational context and do not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is appropriately detailed for a security- and billing-sensitive preparation tool and front-loads the core purpose and constraints. It does repeat some points, notably owner authorization and the absence of observation/payment/allowance reservation, which makes it slightly longer than necessary. Overall structure is still functional and readable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the nested scope object, authorization requirements, idempotency concerns, and high-stakes separation from actual observation and payment, the description is complete enough for an agent to prepare a valid request. An output schema exists, and the description still usefully previews the return terms and approval workflow. Recovery and validation edge cases are also covered.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains check_label stability, scope contents including claim_ref, questioned and control URLs, query constraints, deadline_seconds range, and authorized_public_read=true. It also clarifies dotted-path extraction semantics with concrete examples. This compensates thoroughly for the sparse schema.

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?

The description makes clear that this tool prepares/freezes the terms for a public-read check and returns scope, obligation hash, price, and a confirmation notice. It distinguishes the preparation phase from actual observation or payment, which helps separate it from run_receipt. However, the opening sentence is framed as an instruction for describing the destination state rather than a crisp statement of the tool's purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit preconditions: owner authorization for public reads, same-host public HTTPS JSON URLs, distinct paths, and a genuinely known-good control. It also states that no observation or payment occurs here and that separate explicit run approval is required before proceeding, which effectively guides when to use this versus a run tool. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, so it falls short of perfect alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server