get_listingOne listing's page. The owner sees their own even when pending or hidden.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Listing ID, from `Anuncio.id`. | |
| retry_key | No | Optional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_passRemoved value: -{
- "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / api_passAdded value: +{
+ "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / retry_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Listing ID, from `Anuncio.id`."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — owners can see their own listing even when pending or hidden — which is authorization context the annotations cannot express, though it is stated tersely and without saying what non-owners receive.
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 very short sentences with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than crispness.
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 two-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It never indicates what the returned page contains (fields, owner-only extras, error behavior for missing IDs), which leaves real gaps for an agent deciding how to consume the result.
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%: `id` is documented as coming from `Anuncio.id` and `retry_key` is fully specified in the schema. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"One listing's page" names the resource but uses a vague noun ("page") instead of a clear verb+resource like "retrieve a single listing." It does not distinguish this tool from near siblings such as get_listing_readme, listing_history, or listing_status, so an agent still has to infer which listing-related read it wants.
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 statement of when to use this versus list_listings, get_listing_readme, or listing_status. The visibility note implies a context (pending/hidden listings) but never says when the caller should reach for this tool or what the alternative is.
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.