Fetch selectable phrases and sign-offs by occasion and register to assemble e-cards using prewritten options instead of custom text.
The selectable phrase library + sign-offs. register: plain (default) | lore | all. Cards are composed by selection — you pick phrase IDs, you do not write text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| occasion | No | ||
| register | No | plain |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by defining register values (plain/lore/all) and the rule that users pick phrase IDs rather than write text. Yet it does not disclose what the occasion parameter does, the return structure, or whether results are filtered or paginated.
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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource identity, then lists register options and the selection behavior, with every phrase earning its place.
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 two-optional-parameter getter, the description gives a usable entry point: it explains the register options and the selection-based composition model. However, the omission of occasion's meaning and the absence of any output schema leave notable gaps for an agent trying to make an informed call beyond defaults.
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?
The schema contains zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does for 'register' by listing valid values and the default, but 'occasion' is left completely unexplained. With half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the coverage is insufficient.
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 the resource as a 'selectable phrase library + sign-offs' and explains that cards are composed by selecting phrase IDs, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_card_templates and send_card. There is no explicit verb in the description, but the tool name 'get' plus the resource framing makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies when to use the tool: when composing a card, you select phrases from this library rather than writing free text. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_card_templates, leaving the comparative routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.