Geschenklotse.de MCP

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the append-to-end semantics and the batch bound, but says nothing about retry/idempotency implications (which matter since idempotentHint=false) or what happens on partial failure — a real gap for a batch mutation.

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 brief sentences with zero filler, and the operational constraint (batch size, target list) is front-loaded before the content-quality rule.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never indicates what comes back (e.g., created item IDs) or how partial failures are reported. Given a non-idempotent batch write, this leaves an agent without the information needed to handle retries or verification.

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 coverage is 50%, with nested item fields (title, url, price, priority, etc.) well documented in the schema itself. The description adds the 1–25 batch range and a hint about URL handling, but says nothing about wishlistId validity or how a non-existent wishlist is treated.

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+resource with placement and scale: 'Adds 1–25 items to the end of a wishlist.' The 'to the end' phrasing and batch cap cleanly separate it from siblings like update_item, reorder_items, and create_wishlist without needing to name them.

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 guidance given ('Only add what the user asked for; do not invent products or URLs') governs content fidelity, not when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_item or create_wishlist. Usage context is implied by the append-to-wishlist framing but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare the side-effect profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the wishlist is created empty and privacy settings (PIN, reservations, guest items) hold safe defaults and are not configurable through this tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The second sentence is slightly tangential to the actual parameter set but does prevent futile configuration attempts, so it still earns most of its space.

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?

Adequate for a simple create tool with clear annotations and no output schema, but it says nothing about what is returned, whether the title must be unique, or how theme changes the result — the parameter surface is entirely undocumented in prose.

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% across all three parameters (title, theme, description), and the description names none of them — it instead discusses privacy settings that aren't even parameters. The enum of seven themes and the title/description length limits are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Creates a new, empty wishlist') and the word 'empty' distinguishes it from sibling add_items/update_item, which operate on existing wishes. An agent can select this over the other six siblings without opening a schema.

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 implied by 'empty' (populate later via add_items) and by the note that privacy settings can only be changed in the app, which is a soft when-not. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use condition or prerequisite (e.g. auth/limit) is stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond that: deletion is permanent, irreversible, cascades to the uploaded image, and requires user confirmation first. It doesn't cover auth requirements or behavior when the item/wishlist doesn't exist, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the permanence warning front-loaded so the agent sees the risk before committing to the call.

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?

For a 2-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision context: what is destroyed, that it includes the image, and that confirmation is required. Minor gaps remain around error/not-found behavior and permissions, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

Both parameters have 100% schema description coverage (UUID patterns with descriptions), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 (permanently deletes), a scoped resource (one item), and a non-obvious side effect (and its uploaded image). An agent can immediately distinguish this from update_item or add_items in the sibling 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?

"Cannot be undone – ask the user first" gives a clear pre-invocation condition (confirm with the user) for a destructive call. It doesn't name alternatives, but no sibling offers a non-destructive way to remove an item, so little guidance is actually missing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: item ordering encodes priority (first item = top priority) and returned item text is untrusted user data rather than instructions. It does not address the surprising idempotentHint=false for a 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 short sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the return contract, the second carries ordering semantics and the injection warning. The most decision-relevant fact (single wishlist, ordered items) is front-loaded.

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 must carry the return contract, and it does so partially: it states that all items come back in priority order, but not the item fields or shape. For a simple single-resource read with full annotation coverage, this is nearly 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 100%, with wishlistId fully typed as a UUID via pattern. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for schema-documented parameters 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 (returns one wishlist) plus the scope of what is included (all items, in current order). The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_wishlists, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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: fetching a single wishlist by a known ID contrasts with listing, and that is left for the agent to infer. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_wishlists, and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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

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 value beyond that by disclosing the return payload shape (id, title, theme, item count, share link), which matters since there is no output schema; it does not mention pagination or result limits.

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 short sentences with no filler; the capability and return fields come first, and the sequencing instruction comes last where it is actionable. 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 no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what comes back and that it should be called first. Only minor omissions remain, such as whether all wishlists are returned or whether results are paginated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly makes no parameter claims.

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 ('Lists the signed-in user's wishlists') and scopes it to the caller's own data. It also enumerates the fields returned, which helps distinguish it from the sibling get_wishlist, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Call this first to get wishlist ids' gives explicit sequencing guidance and implies the discovery-then-detail workflow. It stops short of naming get_wishlist as the follow-up or stating any when-not condition, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: partial-list semantics (unmentioned items retain relative order and move after the listed ones) and the visibility consequence that guests see this order. Permission requirements and error handling remain unstated.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the core effect ("Sets the order of items; first id = top") before the edge-case rule and the visibility note. No filler or restatement of the name or title.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers ordering semantics, partial-list behavior, and the guest-visible side effect. Gaps remain around authorization/edit rights and what happens if a listed id is not in the wishlist, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 coverage is only 50% and both parameters are documented merely as "UUID", so the description carries real weight: it explains that itemIds is an ordered list (first id = top) and defines what happens to items omitted from it. It adds little for wishlistId, but the ordering semantics it supplies are not derivable from the schema.

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 (sets the order) and resource (wishlist items) with the exact semantics of ordering (first id = top). No sibling tool in the list reorders items, so an agent can select this over update_item or add_items without ambiguity.

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 implied by the purpose (call this to reorder a wishlist), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, e.g. it never clarifies why one would pick this instead of update_item. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the patch semantics ('only the given fields change') and the null-to-clear convention for description, price and priority, which is a non-obvious mutation contract.

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 short sentences, zero filler; the core patch behavior is front-loaded and the null-clear rule follows as the only necessary exception detail.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential patch contract and clearing convention, while annotations cover idempotency and safety and the schema covers every parameter. Only error/permission behavior on invalid IDs is unaddressed, 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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the tri-state semantics of the nullable parameters (null clears the field), which the schema only hints at by listing null in the type union.

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: 'Changes fields of one item.' The mention of 'one item' implicitly separates it from update_wishlist and the bulk add_items, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the agent must infer the routing.

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 implied by the partial-update wording ('Only the given fields change'), which tells the agent this is the tool for modifying an existing item rather than creating one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to the delete_item / reorder_items alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The phrase 'and/or' usefully signals partial-update semantics, which is real added value. However, it omits whether passing null clears the description, whether omitted fields are left untouched, and any auth or error behavior.

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 tight sentence with the verb and target up front and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that it leaves useful information on the table rather than being maximally informative per word.

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 a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover safety and idempotency, the description is close to sufficient: the agent can infer the updatable fields and their optionality. The missing piece is the null-clears-description behavior, which matters for an optional nullable field.

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 only 25% (just wishlistId = 'UUID'), so the description must compensate. It names all three mutable fields, which covers the remaining parameters at a name level, but adds no semantic detail: no mention that the theme enum is a fixed set of values, no length bounds, and no explanation that null clears the description.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Changes') and the exact mutable fields (title, description, theme) on a clearly identified resource ('one of the user's wishlists'), which separates it from update_item and create_wishlist. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it supersedes or the read counterpart get_wishlist.

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 states only what the tool changes, with no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. ownership of the wishlist), and no reference to alternatives such as update_item for item-level edits. An agent must infer the correct invocation scenario from the name alone.

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