OLX MCP

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

With no annotations, the description does substantial disclosure: parent_id results come instantly from a snapshot, query mode makes one live request, counts are live, and results are sorted largest first. It also documents the response shape, though it does not cover error behavior, permissions, or rate limits.

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 dense and front-loaded, opening with the tool's purpose and then covering each mode and the result shape. Given the absence of an output schema, including the result format earns its place rather than being redundant.

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 three-parameter browse tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the missing context well: all operating modes, data freshness trade-offs, ordering, and the returned fields. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: no arguments returns 19 top-level categories, parent_id lists sub-categories, and query returns categories with live offer counts ordered largest first. It also explains that path is a full Polish name trail.

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 resource and goal: finding a category_id for olx_search. It distinguishes all three modes of operation and names the sibling tool it feeds into, so an agent can identify its role 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?

It explicitly explains when to call without arguments, with parent_id, and with query, including why the query mode is useful: it is the quickest way to pick a category for a search term. This gives clear mode-selection guidance and ties the tool to olx_search.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the live public-API fetch, typical latency and an unblocker fallback path, that coordinates are 'often approximate', that contact details are excluded, and that the price field becomes salary for job offers. It stops short of describing failure behavior (expired/removed offers, invalid ids).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the returned-field inventory and fetch characteristics. The dense semicolon-chained field list is long but every clause adds information, and the explicit result shape matters since no output schema exists.

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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the field inventory, fetch timing and the caveat about approximate coordinates, so an agent knows what it will get. The main omission is error/empty-result behavior for stale or nonexistent offer ids.

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%, with id (numeric or OLX URL) and no_cache both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about either parameter — the URL-vs-numeric id flexibility is stated only in 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 and resource ('Full details of one OLX.pl offer') and enumerates exactly what is returned: price/salary, attributes with Polish names, description, photos, location, seller, timestamps, delivery, external link. This is unmistakably distinct from the listing-oriented siblings olx_search and olx_categories.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Full details of one... offer' suggests calling it after a search to expand a single result, and the schema's id description points to olx_search. But the description itself never states when to use this versus olx_search, nor what to do when the id is unknown.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses typical latency, unblocker fallback, the 1000-result paging limit, default exclusion of promoted ads, and that empty matches are successful results with a note. It also explains price-type semantics so missing values are never misread as 0 PLN.

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 front-loaded with purpose and category IDs, but then becomes a dense wall that duplicates output-shape and per-offer field documentation already covered by the output schema. Those details are behaviorally informative but make the description longer than necessary for tool selection and invocation.

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 15-parameter search tool with nested filters and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: category taxonomy, filter construction, pagination behavior, price semantics, seller/condition constraints, and empty-result handling. Nothing critical is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning by listing common category_id values and explaining that filter keys derive from an offer's `params` keys. The filters schema itself contains examples, so the added value is real but partially overlapping.

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 (search) and resource (OLX.pl classifieds) and enumerates supported categories and filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming olx_categories for the taxonomy and olx_offer for full offer details.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use olx_categories for the full tree and category distribution, and pass an offer's id to olx_offer for descriptions, photos, and map location. It also explains when to omit the query to browse a category/place and how to handle empty results as successful answers.

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