get_in_the_boxWhat ships in the box for one product, per model or configuration, as the maker's own page states it: each item, its quantity, whether it is included (false means the maker says it is not), and the page it came from. Optional variant narrows to one configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant | No | Part of a configuration name, e.g. 'Pro' | |
| product_slug | Yes | A product_slug, e.g. 'apple-watch' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing data provenance and interpretation rules ('as the maker's own page states it', 'false means the maker says it is not'), which is genuinely useful for deciding how much to trust a missing item.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-enumerated payload list; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated. It is dense but not wasteful.
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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return shape (item, quantity, included flag, source page). It omits edge behavior such as empty results or how multiple models are ordered, which is a minor gap.
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 are already documented; the description only restates that variant narrows results to one configuration, adding little beyond the schema's 'Part of a configuration name, e.g. Pro'. Baseline 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 names a precise resource and scope: what ships in the box for one product, broken out per model or configuration, with the source page. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_product_facts or get_detailed_facts because the returned artifact is explicitly the packing list.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'Optional variant narrows to one configuration' tells the agent the variant is an optional filter, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to or away from any sibling tool.
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.