Generates a secure checkout and purchase link for a specific eSIM package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageCode | Yes | The package code of the eSIM (e.g. PIK0SW14Q). | |
| discountCode | No | Optional coupon code to pre-apply (e.g. WELCOME10). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| isError | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "text"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "isError": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a secure checkout and purchase link for an eSIM package, but does not disclose link expiration, authentication needs, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.
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 redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has full parameter coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, so the description only needs to state the core purpose. It does so adequately, though it could briefly clarify that this generates a link rather than executing a purchase.
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 both parameters (packageCode and discountCode) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics such as format constraints or coupon behavior, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb (Generates), resource (secure checkout and purchase link), and scope (for a specific eSIM package). It distinguishes from purchase-executing siblings implicitly by focusing on link generation rather than completing a purchase, but does not explicitly name or contrast with them.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as purchase_esim_with_wallet or purchase_topup. It also omits prerequisites or conditions that would select this tool over related siblings.
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.