Retrieve invitation suite details—paper types, sizes, and price range—using a suite UUID from catalog search or favorites.
Get details for an invitation design "suite" (the family of matching invitation + RSVP + details cards), including paper types, sizes, and price range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suite_uuid | Yes | Suite UUID (e.g. from search_card_catalog or list_favorite_card_suites) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful specifics about what details are returned (paper types, sizes, price range), going 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly defines the resource and lists the returned details. No wasted words.
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 read-only lookup with one required parameter fully documented in the schema and safety annotations present, the description provides enough context about the returned content. No output schema is needed.
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 parameter's own description provides examples of source tools. The description adds no additional meaning about the suite_uuid parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb (Get) and resource (card suite), and defines what a suite is with concrete examples (invitation + RSVP + details cards). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like search_card_catalog or get_card_project, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the parameter schema notes where to obtain a suite_uuid, the description itself offers no context about when fetching a suite is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.