Get the existing A$1 Stripe checkout route and GitHub entry instructions. Calling this tool does not create a payment or an attempt.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "glassbox_checkout"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| githubUsername | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does earn credit for explicitly stating the call is side-effect free (no payment, no attempt). However, it omits whether authentication or a real GitHub identity is required, whether githubUsername is optional vs. functional, and what the returned 'instructions' look like.
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 the retrieval purpose front-loaded ahead of the safety caveat, and no filler. Minor deduction because 'existing A$1 Stripe checkout route' is padded phrasing that doesn't sharpen 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 one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool this is minimally adequate: it conveys the read-only nature and the general subject. It stops short of telling the agent what it receives back or how the optional GitHub username affects the response, which matters since nothing else documents it.
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% for the single optional parameter githubUsername, and the description only obliquely implies GitHub relevance through the phrase 'GitHub entry instructions'. It does not say what supplying the username changes, nor that it is optional and pattern-constrained.
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 verb is 'Get' and the resource is nominally named ('existing A$1 Stripe checkout route and GitHub entry instructions'), but 'checkout route' and 'entry instructions' are vague about what is actually retrieved. Nothing in the description distinguishes this tool from the sibling glassbox_offer or nest_dataset_offer, so an agent must infer the split.
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 clarifies one negative ('does not create a payment or an attempt') but never says when to call this versus glassbox_offer or what prerequisites exist. There is no explicit trigger condition or alternative routing, only a caveat.
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.