Fetch the full paid listing kit by Stripe checkout session id.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"session_id": "<session_id>"
},
"name": "listing_kit_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read operation via 'fetch.' It says nothing about what happens when the session is unpaid or expired, whether the response is idempotent, or what error conditions to expect for a paid-content lookup.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is stated before the keying detail. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere.
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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the full paid listing kit). It falls short on failure modes for unpaid/invalid sessions and on how this differs behaviorally from listing_kit_preview.
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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does add meaningful semantics by identifying session_id as a Stripe checkout session id, but gives no format example or indication of where the id comes from.
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 (fetch) and resource (full paid listing kit) plus the keying mechanism (Stripe checkout session id). The word 'full' plus 'paid' signals a distinction from listing_kit_preview, though that sibling is never named 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of listing_kit_preview or listing_kit_status. An agent must infer that this should be called for the paid artifact while preview/status cover the other cases.
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.