Final MCP handoff step. Return preview data and a Personalise Your Ecard URL. Do not collect recipient email, discuss payment in MCP, or ask the user to type continue; show the previewUrl immediately so the user can review and complete the ecard on the website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'generate preview' by detailing specific actions to take (show previewUrl immediately) and to avoid (email/payment/continue prompts). This gives the agent actionable transparency, though it does not mention error handling or permission requirements.
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 brief, front-loaded with 'Final MCP handoff step', and packs critical behavioral instructions into a few sentences. Every clause adds value—return data, avoid-specific actions, show URL immediately—without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing.
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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: its place in the workflow, the expected return contents, and user-interface actions. It misses some detail about itemId and the exact structure of the returned preview data, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the itemId parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no meaning beyond that. Since coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess what itemId refers to.
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 clearly states it is the 'Final MCP handoff step' that returns preview data and a Personalise Your Ecard URL. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ecard_draft or personalize_message, which are earlier steps in the flow.
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 explicitly frames this as the final step, indicating when it should be used. It also provides behavioral guidance on what not to do (collect email, discuss payment, ask to type continue) and to show the previewUrl immediately. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the context makes the usage timing clear.
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.