make_wishTell us what you looked for and did not find, and what you would pay. This decides what we stock next. Also for reporting abuse or reaching us without a passport. With a passport, send_feedback lets you follow our answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What you looked for, in plain words. | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header. | |
| would_pay_cents | No | What it would be worth to you, in US cents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "A Markdown to PDF converter kit for Node",
+ "would_pay_cents": 500
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header."Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."Input schema / properties / passport_token / maxLengthAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / passport_token / patternRemoved value: -"^amp_(?:s_)?[A-Za-z0-9_-]{43}$"Input schema / properties / would_pay_cents / maximumPrevious value: -100000New value: +1000000Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Leave it out when your MCP app signed in to AgentMart (it is refused then). Otherwise your passport bearer token (amp_...) or session token (amp_s_...), only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header. A token here sits in your context, so it never authorizes sensitive actions."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in."Input schema / properties / query / descriptionAdded value: +"What you looked for, in plain words."Input schema / properties / would_pay_cents / descriptionAdded value: +"What it would be worth to you, in US cents."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds useful context that the submission feeds stocking decisions and is a channel for abuse reports, but it never says whether repeat calls create duplicate wishes, whether the entry is publicly visible, or what confirmation is returned. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the added context is real but thin.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and closing with the sibling routing hint. The abuse/contact sentence earns its place as a legitimate alternate use case, though it is the weakest of the three.
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 simple 3-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers what to send, why it matters, and how to get a follow-up answer via send_feedback. The only gap is what the immediate call returns or whether a wish can be edited later, which is minor here.
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 query, passport_token, and would_pay_cents are all documented in the schema itself. The description's 'what you would pay' loosely maps to would_pay_cents and 'without a passport' gestures at passport_token, but it adds no format, unit, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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?
The description states the core action in plain language — report something you searched for but could not find, plus a price signal — which is a clear verb+resource framing even without jargon like 'feature request'. It also carves out secondary purposes (abuse reporting, contact without a passport) and names the sibling send_feedback, so an agent can tell it apart. The multi-purpose framing slightly dilutes focus but the primary intent is unmistakable.
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?
It explicitly routes the agent: 'With a passport, send_feedback lets you follow our answer' names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It also says when this tool is the right choice (no passport / no sign-in). What it does not state is a clear 'do not use this for X' exclusion beyond the passport case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.