find_producerFind a maker and its products across every open node, with the maker's name as each source wrote it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | optional node id, e.g. es-bev | |
| producer | Yes | the maker's name, or part of it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / node / descriptionAdded value: +"optional node id, e.g. es-bev"Input schema / properties / producer / descriptionAdded value: +"the maker's name, or part of it"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds real value by disclosing that the search spans 'every open node' and that names are returned 'as each source wrote it' (i.e., unnormalized variants). It stops short of describing pagination or result shape.
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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scoping qualifier trailing. No wasted words, though it is minimal.
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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: it identifies the resource returned ('its products') and the cross-node scope. Missing detail about return shape (list vs. single, multiplicity across sources) keeps it from a 4.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (node, producer) are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'across every open node' mildly clarifies the node parameter's default scope, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 (find) and resource (maker and its products), which is distinct from the drink-oriented siblings like search_drinks and compare_drinks. However it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it stops short of 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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. The agent is not told when to prefer this over search_drinks or get_record, nor whether 'node' should be supplied. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
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.