AgentStamp

browse_wishes

Browse wishes from the Wishing Well to find desired AI agent capabilities. Filter by category, sort by newest or most granted, and set limit for customized results.

Instructions

Browse wishes from the Wishing Well. Discover what capabilities AI agents want.

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": "browse_wishes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	No	Filter by wish category
`sort`	No		newest
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.2Mar 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Added value: +100
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- changedInput schema / properties / limit / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
```
First observedv2.1.0Mar 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any other behavioral details beyond 'browse'.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. No empty filler; it's appropriately concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how sorting/filtering works, or any behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no parameter information. The schema provides some constraints (sort enum, limit bounds) but the description doesn't clarify meanings like 'most_granted' or valid categories.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool browses wishes from the Wishing Well and explains the purpose of discovering AI agent capabilities. It uses a specific verb and resource, but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like browse_agents.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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