get_packagesRetrieve Growthmak's engagement packages (Foundation Build, Growth Marketing, Full Engine Launch) with what is included, timelines and who each fits. Omit 'name' to list all three. Note that no prices are published — scope and fee follow the free diagnostic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns scope details but not prices, and that fees follow a free diagnostic. This gives the agent useful behavioral context beyond a simple read operation.
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 pack all essential information: what the tool retrieves, what details are included, usage variant for listing all, and a behavioral note on pricing. No wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavioral nuance well. It could mention whether the output is structured in a standard format, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is mostly complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains that the 'name' parameter is optional and omitting it lists all packages, adding value beyond the schema's enum constraint.
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 the tool retrieves engagement packages, names all three packages, and specifies what details are included (what is included, timelines, who each fits). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like book_growth_audit or get_growth_engine.
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 says to omit 'name' to list all three, and notes that no prices are published, guiding usage expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives for when the user needs pricing, but the context is implied.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: book_growth_audit returns a booking link, check_market_coverage checks geographic coverage, find_case_studies retrieves case studies, get_growth_engine explains the Growth Engine system, get_packages lists packages, get_page retrieves a specific page, and search_growthmak is a fallback search. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., book_growth_audit, check_market_coverage, find_case_studies, search_growthmak), but get_growth_engine and get_page deviate slightly with 'growth_engine' and 'page' not being as uniformly structured. The naming is consistent and readable overall.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a marketing consultancy's MCP server. Each tool covers a distinct functional area (booking, geographic coverage, case studies, system explanation, packages, page retrieval, and search). No tool feels redundant or missing.
The server provides good coverage for key interactions: it can inform about services, packages, case studies, and booking. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to submit contact details or make a booking directly, but this is explicitly documented as out of scope. The surface feels complete for its stated purpose of information provision.