Retrieve a specific wishlist and its gifts by providing the wishlist's ID or name.
Fetch a single wishlist by id or name, including its gifts.
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": "get_wishlist"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a wishlist with gifts, but omits critical behaviors such as what happens when both id and name are provided (e.g., precedence or error), authentication requirements, or side effects. The description is too minimal for a fetch operation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise with no extraneous words, though slightly more brevity could be considered ideal.
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 no output schema, the description partially explains the return ('including its gifts'), but lacks detail on the response structure, error cases, and behavior when no parameters are provided. The tool has two optional parameters with no required fields, so more guidance 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 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description adds that the tool can fetch 'by id or name', which provides context beyond the raw schema, but does not clarify whether at least one is required or what happens if both are given. It adds some meaning but is incomplete.
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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('wishlist'), and the identifying criteria ('by id or name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_wishlists' that fetch multiple wishlists, and includes a specific detail ('including its gifts') that adds precision.
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 implicitly suggests use when fetching a single wishlist by id or name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_wishlists' or how to choose between id and name. No when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.