Retrieve guests for an invitation ID, including each guest's personalized link and RSVP response status.
Invitados con link personalizado y si ya respondieron.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invitacion_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned guest data, but it does not disclose pagination, filtering, or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.
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 very short and front-loaded with the key output concept. It wastes no words, though it is a noun phrase rather than a full imperative sentence.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any usage context or differentiation from sibling tools, so it is not fully complete for an agent choosing between similar tools.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not mention invitacion_id at all. The parameter name and required flag are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value for it.
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 the resource (invitados) and the data shown (link personalizado and if they already responded). It is clear enough to distinguish it from tools like ver_confirmaciones, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ver_confirmaciones or ver_invitacion. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.