get_giveaway_packageRetrieve all giveaway links for a specified packageId to view and manage active giveaways tied to a shop package.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Returns all giveaway links for packageId
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. | |
| package_id | Yes | Native packageId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop), which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size for a tool returning 'all' links.
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?
Very compact, with no wasted words. The only structural quibble is that the rate-limit note is placed ahead of the tool's actual purpose, so the core function is not front-loaded.
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 simple read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves open whether the returned link list is paginated or bounded, which matters for a tool that claims to return 'all' links.
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%, including a detailed note on the account parameter and a pattern/maxLength on package_id, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates packageId without adding format or scoping detail beyond it.
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 and resource ('Returns all giveaway links for packageId'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_giveaway_packages or create_giveaway_links. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it doesn't reach 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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as create_giveaway_links or list_giveaway_packages. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.