package_getThe full content package for one request_id — media URLs, all caption variants, and the music credit. Returns exactly what was PUSHED if it was delivered, so a pull and a push can never disagree. Works even for content produced before delivery was configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | Yes | Brand slug. | |
| request_id | Yes | From a package.ready payload or pipeline_status. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: pull/push consistency and support for pre-delivery content, which is not visible in annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then two high-value behavioral guarantees. No filler.
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 lists the main return contents and two important guarantees. It stops short of specifying not-found/undelivered behavior, but for a simple two-param read this is near 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 covers both brand and request_id with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond identifying request_id as the selector. 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 the exact resource (full content package for one request_id) and enumerates contents (media URLs, captions, music credit). It differentiates from package_list by specifying singular request_id scope.
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?
No explicit alternative or exclusion is given. The use case is implied by 'full content package for one request_id' and the schema's request_id origin, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over package_list or how it relates to delivery tools.
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.