get_try_on_resultThe wrist size the person measured with their phone through a try-on link (start_try_on), the watch they liked best, and how each watch fits that wrist. Says when they have not sent it yet, or when the link has expired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The code start_try_on returned |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The read-only annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context about pending and expired link states. It does not detail return shape or error handling beyond those states, but with annotations present the bar is lower.
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?
The description is two compact sentences that front-load the tool’s output and then note edge cases. Every clause contributes relevant information without redundancy.
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 simple retrieval tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and when results may be unavailable. It could be slightly richer about the per-watch fit structure, but it is largely 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?
The single parameter 'code' is fully documented in the schema as 'The code start_try_on returned', so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and its reference to start_try_on.
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 exactly what the tool returns: the measured wrist size from a try-on link, the preferred watch, and fit details for each watch. It explicitly ties the tool to the sibling start_try_on, making its role distinct from creation or suggestion tools.
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 implies usage after start_try_on by referencing the try-on link and the code returned by that tool. It also notes two unavailable states (not sent yet, link expired), but does not explicitly compare alternatives like fit_watch or suggest_sizes.
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.