BoxTier 로그인 연결 확인
get_my_boxtier_accountRead-onlyIdempotent
BoxTier 로그인을 시작하거나 현재 연결된 내 계정과 영수증 생성 한도 정책을 확인한다. 사용자가 로그인, 계정 연결, 내 기록 이용 가능 여부 또는 영수증 한도를 물으면 사용한다.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
BoxTier Basketball Receipt
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is disclosed. The description adds useful behavioral context about checking receipt limits and record availability, but it doesn't go beyond that. No contradiction with annotations, but the extra context is modest.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action, the second states when to use it. It's efficient and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. It could arguably be one sentence, but the current structure is clear and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with robust annotations, the description is complete. It explains the purpose and usage conditions. No output schema exists, so return format is not expected. The mention of checking record availability and receipt limits covers all stated functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'start BoxTier login or check current connected account and receipt generation limit policy.' It also specifies when to use it, which effectively distinguishes it from siblings like create_basketball_receipt and list_my_match_records. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says to use when 'the user asks about login, account connection, my records availability, or receipt limit.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but given the tool's narrow scope, this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct job: searching, fetching one match detail, checking account state, listing personal match records, and generating the receipt. Even though search and fetch are related, their boundary—list vs. detail-by-id—is explicit and unlikely to cause selection errors.
Naming Consistency3/5
Three tools follow the verb_noun pattern (create_basketball_receipt, get_my_boxtier_account, list_my_match_records), but 'search' and especially the generic 'fetch' deviate by having no object or domain qualifier. The set is still readable, but it is not a consistent naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools form a well-rim scope for the server's dual purpose of discovering/matching rooms and generating receipts from user or match data. There are no redundant or decorative tools, and each tool occupies a necessary step in the intended workflows.
Completeness4/5
The main flows are covered: login/limit check → list personal matches or search rooms → receipt creation. The only notable gap is the lack of a way to retrieve or manage previously generated receipts, but users can still be re-run receipt generation from existing match records, so workaround exists.