Retrieves people stored in Gift Keeper with relationship, interests, sizes, preferences, and things to avoid for one named person or everyone, so you can choose a suitable gift.
The people in Gift Keeper with what helps choose a gift: relationship, interests, sizes, preferences and things to avoid. Give a name for one person, or leave it out for everyone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the description does not need to restate that. It does add useful content transparency by listing the kinds of fields returned, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or what an unknown name yields.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the resource described first and the parameter behavior second. The first sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased ('with what helps choose a gift'), which costs a point but does not obscure the meaning.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, and the optional filter. The remaining gap is the absence of any tie-in to the other Gift Keeper tools, which matters given how many siblings share the prefix.
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 entire burden for the single 'name' parameter. It does this well: it states the parameter is optional and that supplying it scopes the result to one person versus returning everyone, which is meaningfully more than the bare schema maxLength constraint.
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 identifies the resource (people in Gift Keeper) and enumerates the attributes it exposes (relationship, interests, sizes, preferences, things to avoid), which makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like gift_keeper_upcoming or gift_keeper_add_idea. It never uses an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', leaving the operation type to be inferred, and it does not name any sibling for contrast.
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 only guidance offered is about the parameter ('give a name for one person, or leave it out for everyone'), which is parameter behavior rather than when-to-use-this-tool guidance. There is no indication of when this is preferable to gift_keeper_upcoming or how it relates to the other Gift Keeper tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.