Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Local MCP

Local MCP

by colibird-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

amazon_list_wishlist

List items from your own Amazon wish lists, including the default list, so you can review saved products and plan purchases.

Instructions

(Beta) Lists the items of one of the person's own Amazon wish lists (default: the account's default list),...

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "amazon_list_wishlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.446

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses that the account's default list is used when unspecified and that the feature is Beta. It says nothing about authorization scope ('the person's own'), result volume, pagination, or what happens when the account has no wish lists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but it ends in a trailing ellipsis, indicating the definition is incomplete rather than deliberately tight. The '(Beta)' tag is useful and cheaply placed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description needn't explain return structure, but the truncated text and the unexplained gap between 'one of the person's own wish lists' and a parameterless schema leave an agent unsure how list selection actually works.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4, but the description implies the agent can choose 'one of the person's own' wish lists while the schema exposes no way to select a list. That mismatch creates ambiguity rather than added meaning, so it drops to 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it 'lists the items' of the person's 'own Amazon wish lists,' which is clearly distinct from the Amazon order/return siblings. It loses a point only because the sentence is truncated by an ellipsis, leaving the scope slightly open-ended.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the resource named ('wish lists' vs. orders), and the default behavior is noted, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named for other wish-list-related operations. The agent must infer that this is the tool for browsing saved items.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools