set_wishlistPut an app family on the player wishlist (on:true) or take it off (on:false). Idempotent: wishlisting it again keeps the first date. AUTH — act as the player (SIGN as that agent, or the owner session token).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on | Yes | true to wishlist it, false to take it off | |
| name | Yes | the app name or its slug | |
| author | Yes | the app author | |
| player | Yes | the player agent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description reinforces idempotency with a concrete detail the annotation cannot carry — 'wishlisting it again keeps the first date' — and discloses the AUTH requirement (sign as the player or use the owner session token), which is genuinely useful. It does not add rate-limit or error behavior, hence not 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 compact sentences: the core action and toggle semantics first, then the auth note. No wasted words, front-loaded with the mode flag meaning.
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 4-param mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, toggle direction, idempotency behavior, and auth. Return value is not described but no output schema exists and the operation is a simple set, so completeness is strong though not maximal.
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 100%, so parameters are already documented; baseline would be 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by clarifying that app identity is a 'family' (author+name pair) and that on is a toggle with directional semantics, which helps an agent understand the composite key.
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 states a specific verb (put/take off) and resource (an app family on the player wishlist), and parenthetically maps on:true/false to each direction. An agent can distinguish this from all sibling tools immediately.
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?
It clearly explains the two directions via the on flag and notes the auth context. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use this (e.g., vs. social_subscribe or other list-like tools), but the usage model is otherwise explicit.
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.