Retrieves compatible top-up data packages for an active eSIM. Requires a valid session token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | The secure session token returned by verify_agent_otp. | |
| orderId | Yes | The ID of the active eSIM order. |
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the authentication requirement (valid session token), which is modest added value beyond the structured data.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the auth prerequisite second. Every clause 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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient. It is slightly thin on what 'compatible' means and where this tool sits in the OTP-verify → browse → purchase flow, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.
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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the token's provenance from verify_agent_otp. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves compatible top-up data packages') with a scoping condition ('for an active eSIM'), which clearly separates it from the sibling purchase_topup. It does not explicitly name any sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 an active eSIM' and 'Requires a valid session token' imply preconditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to the sibling tools (e.g., purchase_topup, verify_agent_otp) that complete the flow.
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.