within

Gift ideas

gift_ideas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find in-stock designer gift ideas for her, him, or anyone by budget, with prices, boutique, and buy link. Use for luxury, Christmas, or under-100 gift requests.

Instructions

Gift ideas in stock at independent luxury boutiques: designer gifts for her, for him or for anyone, under a budget, each with its price, the shop and the shopwithin.co page to buy it, plus within's gift guides that fit. The gifts come from those guides, where every item is listed in one size: jewelry, wallets, bags, hats, scarves, sunglasses, watches and candles. Use this when someone asks for gift ideas or Christmas gift ideas, gifts for her or for him, a gift for a boyfriend, girlfriend, mom or dad, luxury gifts, designer gifts or gifts under 100. When the guides hold too little for the ask it returns plain stock under the budget and says so. It only knows the boutiques on within.

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": "gift_ideas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	A kind of gift or a word to look for: 'jewelry', 'wallet', 'candle', 'sunglasses', 'made in Canada', 'sneakers'.
`limit`	No	Most gifts to return, default 12.
`budget`	No	The most to spend. Read in Canadian dollars, the boutiques' own prices.
`recipient`	No	Who the gift is for, in plain words: 'her', 'him', 'my dad', 'girlfriend', 'mom', 'anyone'. Left out: gifts for anyone.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`budget`	Yes
`guides`	Yes
`pieces`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`gift_for`	Yes
`budget_currency`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that results come from within's gift guides, that each guide item is listed in one size, and that the tool falls back to plain in-stock items under budget when guide coverage is thin. It also states the important limitation that it only knows boutiques on within.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded and information-dense, with the primary purpose and usage cases appearing immediately. It is somewhat lengthy and repeats recipient phrasing, but most sentences add useful scope or fallback context.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, rich annotations, full schema coverage, and output schema, the description provides the remaining context an agent needs: data source, stock scope, fallback behavior, and coverage limits. Nothing essential for correct tool selection or invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are well documented structurally. The tool description adds context around budget and recipient use cases but does not provide meaningfully more parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific retrieval resource—gift ideas in stock at independent luxury boutiques—and lists the concrete output fields (price, shop, shopwithin.co page, matching gift guides). It clearly distinguishes this from generic product search by anchoring results in its curated gift guides and naming covered categories.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit usage triggers: gift ideas, Christmas gifts, gifts for her/him, boyfriend/girlfriend/mom/dad, luxury/designer gifts, or gifts under 100. It also describes a fallback when the guides are too sparse. It does not name a sibling alternative for non-gift product discovery, which keeps it just short of the top score.

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