get_passportBrand's own listing, then other matching stores found in a catalog search, marked same, likely same or not, with evidence. Example: {"product_url":"https://owalalife.com/products/freesip"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_url | Yes | Shopify product URL (seller_url) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| product | No | ||
| passport_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / product_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"A Shopify product URL (from search_products seller_url), from the brand or any reseller."New value: +"Shopify product URL (seller_url)"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "passport_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "product": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover the safety profile: read-only, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that results include match classifications and evidence, but it does not discuss catalog scope, result limits, or other operational details.
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?
The description is compact and includes a concrete example, with little wasted text. It is somewhat fragmentary and does not front-load a clear action verb, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
The input schema is simple and fully documented, the output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. However, the description does not fully resolve what a 'product passport' is relative to sibling tools, leaving some selection ambiguity for an agent.
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 product_url parameter is already documented as a Shopify product URL. The description adds an example URL, which is mildly helpful, but does not add substantive semantics 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?
The description clearly indicates the tool returns the brand's own listing plus matching store listings from a catalog search, labeled as same, likely same, or not same with evidence. It does not explicitly differentiate this behavior from siblings such as compare_prices or get_product, which keeps it from 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 implies the tool is used to find matching store listings for a product URL, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like compare_prices or get_product.
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.