Browse published ecards by category, keyword, and tags. Multi-word keywords or tags are split into individual terms for tag matching, so search concepts like sympathy and loss separately instead of relying on exact phrase tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| categoryId | No | ||
| categoryName | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: multi-word keywords/tags are split into individual terms for tag matching. However, it omits pagination behavior, result ordering, and whether the operation is read-only, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the second adds a valuable behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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 browse tool with 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It covers basic filters and a matching nuance, but leaves out pagination, result shape, and parameter interplay, so an agent would face significant unknowns when invoking it.
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?
Input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for category, keyword, and tags, but does not explain limit or cursor, nor the relationship between categoryId and categoryName. This partially compensates for the schema gap but is insufficient for 6 undocumented parameters.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse published ecards by category, keyword, and tags.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card or create_ecard_draft. No ambiguity in what the tool does.
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 description implies usage for discovery/search over published ecards, with clear context of filtering by category, keyword, and tags. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it versus get_card, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: browsing/searching cards, retrieving a specific card, creating a draft, personalizing the message, selecting music, and generating the preview. There is no overlap between searching and retrieving, and the draft modification tools are clearly separate from creation and finalization.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., browse_cards, create_ecard_draft, generate_preview). The verbs are specific to the action, and the nouns clearly indicate the entity being acted upon, making the pattern predictable.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for the ecard personalization workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step in the process, and the count is neither bloated nor too sparse for the domain.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from discovering cards, creating a draft, personalizing message and music, to generating a preview handoff. Missing draft retrieval or deletion are not gaps in this context since the workflow is linear and completion occurs on the website.