View and search your CellarTracker wishlist wines by name, region, or varietal to find bottles you want to track or buy.
View your CellarTracker wishlist wines. Optionally search by wine name, region, or varietal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search term |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| wines | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe/read-only nature is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that – no mention of pagination, auth requirements, result limits, or what the wishlist view returns. It essentially restates the read operation the annotations already imply.
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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the optional modifier second. No filler or redundancy.
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 need no explanation, and with only one optional parameter the description is close to sufficient. A brief note on scope (e.g., whether it returns all wishlist items by default) would close the remaining gap.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the bare 'Search term' parameter by specifying it matches wine name, region, or varietal. That adds real semantic meaning about what the query actually filters on.
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?
States a specific verb ('View') and resource ('CellarTracker wishlist wines'), which clearly separates it from siblings like search-cellar or cellar-stats. It lacks any explicit naming of an alternative tool, so it stops 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?
'Optionally search by wine name, region, or varietal' implies the two usage modes (list all vs. filtered search), which is useful context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search-cellar, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.