get_listingFull details of one live MRK sale listing by web slug or reference.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_listing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Listing web slug or reference |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add scoping context beyond that – 'live' signals that delisted/sold listings are out of scope and 'MRK sale' excludes rentals – but it says nothing about behavior for an invalid slug, a missing listing, or a listing that has since gone off-market.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the return scope and ending with the accepted identifier forms. No filler, no 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?
For a simple single-resource read with annotations already covering safety, the description is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no statement of what 'full details' comprise, the agent has no picture of the response shape or of failure modes.
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 parameter is already documented as 'Listing web slug or reference'. The description restates the same 'web slug or reference' phrasing without adding format examples, slug-vs-reference precedence, or whether references are numeric. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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+resource: 'Full details of one live MRK sale listing'. The words 'one' and 'live ... sale' clearly separate it from the plural search_listings sibling, though the sibling is never named. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling is named. The singular 'one ... listing' plus 'by web slug or reference' only implies that this is the follow-up call after search_listings returns an identifier, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.