checkout_linkFor this session's cart (or one product), the link(s) where a PERSON completes the purchase: the product page and the store's cart for own products (Media Depot's own checkout), the retailer's buy link for affiliate products. This server never places an order or takes a payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | one product instead of the cart |
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 does so for the most important trait: 'This server never places an order or takes a payment,' setting accurate expectations about a human handoff. It omits secondary behavior (link expiry, whether it mutates the cart), but the critical safety expectation is explicitly disclosed.
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 that front-loads scope then the key assertion. Each clause earns its place, though the parenthetical 'Media Depot's own checkout' is slightly redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description explains what the returned links are (own product page/store cart vs affiliate retailer buy link), which covers the main unknown. Minor gaps remain around link lifetime and cart mutation, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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% and the single parameter is already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the schema's 'one product instead of the cart' and adds the implicit default (the session's cart), which is a marginal value-add over structured data.
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 verb+resource — it returns the link(s) where a human completes a purchase — and clarifies the tool is a link provider, not a checkout executor. It does not name siblings (cart, product) to differentiate, but the 'links, not the data/order' framing makes its role reasonably distinct.
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 agent can infer 'use this when a buyer needs to finish a purchase.' The scope toggle ('this session's cart, or one product') hints at when the parameter applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.