get_cartReturn the customer's most-recently-updated cart with per-line and total reward projection. Bearer + phone required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | E.164 phone selecting the customer whose cart to return. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It specifies auth requirements, selection behavior (most-recently-updated), and return contents (reward projection). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or how missing carts are handled, leaving some ambiguity.
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 sentences that front-load the primary function, then add auth and return details. There is no unnecessary content, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and auth requirement. It could mention empty-cart behavior or error cases, but the core functionality is clearly specified.
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% with the phone parameter fully described, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning 'Bearer + phone required'. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 it returns the customer's most-recently-updated cart with per-line and total reward projection, using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer and list_orders.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'Bearer + phone required' is a prerequisite rather than usage context. The description does not reference any sibling tools or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.