list_giveaway_packagesRetrieve all giveaway packages and their giveaway links for a shop account. Use it to view or manage packages eligible for giveaway promotions.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Returns all packages with giveaway links
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a concrete rate limit of 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop with a doc link. What it does not add is return shape or pagination behavior, so it is not a 5.
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 short sentences with zero waste; the operational constraint (rate limit) is front-loaded and the purpose follows immediately. Nothing is padded.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries more burden for return values, and it only says 'all packages with giveaway links' without describing result structure or pagination. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering the parameter, it is adequate but leaves a genuine gap on the list result shape.
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% and the single 'account' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so this lands at the baseline 3 for a schema that already does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all packages with giveaway links.' It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the singular sibling get_giveaway_package or explain the plural/singular relationship, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_giveaway_package for a single package. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.