One 7NOW bundle deal's pick-from groups: each group's name, how many items to pick, and every eligible item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| promo_id | Yes | Required. Promotion id, from GET /7now/combos' combos[].promo_id. | |
| store_id | Yes | Required. 7NOW store id, from GET /7now/stores. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what the response contains (per-group pick counts and eligible items), but says nothing beyond that about auth, freshness, or scoping.
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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource before its contents. Slightly awkward phrasing ('One 7NOW bundle deal's pick-from groups') but structurally sound and appropriately sized.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations carry the read-only/open-world profile, so the description need not explain return values. For a two-param detail lookup it is nearly complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.
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 100% and both parameters are already documented with their source endpoints in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific resource - one 7NOW bundle deal's pick-from groups - and enumerates the fields returned (group name, item count, eligible items). The singular 'One ... bundle deal' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sevennow_combos, but it never names that sibling 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?
Usage is only implied: the description conveys that this fetches the pick-from structure for a single combo, and the schema notes promo_id comes from GET /7now/combos. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the sevennow_combos/sevennow_deals siblings an agent would weigh against it.
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.
