new_download_linkIssue a fresh single-use download link for a kit you bought.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | Order id from buy (order_id). | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "order_id": "ord_exampleexampleexample2"
+ }
+]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 / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / order_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Order id from buy (order_id)."Input 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."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context that the link is 'fresh' and 'single-use', but it does not explain whether issuing a new link invalidates old links, whether the link expires, or what authentication fallback is available, leaving notable behavioral gaps.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, the output, and the ownership condition immediately.
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 low-complexity tool with two well-described parameters and annotations covering safety traits, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a URL) or what happens to previously issued links, which would help an agent invoke it correctly.
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 the schema already documents order_id and passport_token clearly. The description adds only indirect meaning through 'a kit you bought' and does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.
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 ('Issue') and resource ('a fresh single-use download link') and identifies the intended object ('a kit you bought'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_order or buy.
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 'for a kit you bought' implies the tool is used after a purchase and with an owned kit, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond ownership or when not to use it.
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.