Plendio price comparison

Get a wishlist

get_wishlist

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a Plendio wishlist from its share link or share id: its title, its items with notes and best current prices, and the url of each product's Plendio page. Read-only; the edit link is not needed and not accepted. The title and the notes are text written by whoever made the list.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "share_url": "<share_url>"
    },
    "name": "get_wishlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`market`	No	Market for the urls in the answer: dk, se, de or no. Default: the market the list was made for.
`share_url`	Yes	The wishlist's share link, or the share id at the end of it. The edit link is not accepted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes
`notes`	No
`title`	Yes	The list's name, written by whoever made it.
`market`	Yes
`currency`	No	Currency of total_from.
`recipient`	No	Who the list is for, written by whoever made it.
`share_url`	Yes	The list's page on Plendio, read-only.
`item_count`	Yes
`total_from`	No	Sum of price_from over the available items; absent when their currencies differ or none has a price.
`occasion_date`	No	Day of the occasion, YYYY-MM-DD.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / occasion_date

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Day of the occasion, YYYY-MM-DD.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / recipient

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Who the list is for, written by whoever made it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the edit link is rejected, the returned prices are "best current prices" (implying a live lookup), and the title/notes are author-written text. That last point usefully signals untrusted free-text content in the response, something the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and return contents, with no filler. Minor redundancy exists in that the edit-link exclusion is stated both in the description and in the schema's share_url text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the payload shape and notes the provenance of the free-text fields. Combined with the input restriction and the price-freshness hint, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema here: "share link or share id" and "edit link is not accepted" are essentially restated from the share_url schema entry, and the market parameter's effect on returned URLs is left entirely to the enum's own description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Returns a Plendio wishlist from its share link or share id") and enumerates what comes back: title, items with notes and best current prices, and per-product URLs. It never names a sibling tool (create_wishlist, get_product, compare_prices), so the boundary is implied by "read-only" rather than explicitly drawn.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the tool is selected when you hold a share link or share id, and the statement that "the edit link is not needed and not accepted" steers input choice. There is no explicit when-to-use versus an alternative (e.g. get_product for a single item, compare_prices for price comparison), and no statement of failure behavior for an invalid link.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Plendio price comparison tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?