Find agent-ready products for a task intent (e.g. 'send transactional email'). Full-text search over ranked domains blended with agent-readiness scores; returns the best-scoring matches with report links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| intent | Yes | What you're trying to accomplish, in plain words |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the search mechanism (full-text, ranked, blended with scores) and output (best matches with report links). However, it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or whether the tool is read-only. It is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences, 25 words total. The first sentence states the core purpose and example, the second adds detail on search approach and output. No redundant or filler words; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main points: purpose, input, search method, and output. It lacks details about product attributes or score interpretation, but for a search tool this level is sufficient. Output schema absence is mitigated by describing returns as 'best-scoring matches with report links'.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by providing an example for 'intent' ('send transactional email') and defining it as 'what you're trying to accomplish, in plain words', which clarifies usage. The 'limit' parameter is not expanded but is clearly described 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find agent-ready products for a task intent'. It specifies the input (intent) and output (best-scoring matches with report links). 'Discover_products' is distinct from sibling 'search_capabilities' as it focuses on products with agent-readiness scores.
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 explains when to use the tool: 'for a task intent (e.g. 'send transactional email')'. It implies usage context (finding agent-ready products) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings like 'search_capabilities'.
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.