Retrieve gift cards from a Lightspeed Retail store, optionally filtered by status such as ACTIVE or VOIDED, to review card details and states.
Gift cards, optionally by status (e.g. ACTIVE, VOIDED).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| before | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about paging behavior, default page size, ordering, or what the returned list contains, so beyond the status filter it contributes no behavioral context.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good. Brevity here crosses into under-specification, though, since the only content is the status filter example.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a three-parameter list tool with zero schema coverage the description omits pagination semantics and alternative-tool guidance. That leaves the agent guessing on two of the three parameters.
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 must carry the parameter burden, but it only mentions status and gives example values. The before cursor and page_size parameters are completely unexplained, including what unit before is measured in.
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 (gift cards) and the status filter, and the tool name supplies the list verb, so the intent is recoverable. However, it is a noun phrase fragment with no verb, and it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling find_gift_card.
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?
It says the status filter is optional but never says when to call this versus find_gift_card, nor how pagination should be used. An agent has to infer that this is the enumeration path and that one would be the lookup path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.