Batch catalog lookup by ids. Public (no key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| cloud | No | ||
| fields | No | Optional response projection: dot paths to keep, e.g. row-level ["id","title","price"]. Envelope/meta keys (ok, success, total, count, pagination) are always kept; unknown paths are ignored; empty/absent = full response. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / fieldsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional response projection: dot paths to keep, e.g. row-level [\"id\",\"title\",\"price\"]. Envelope/meta keys (ok, success, total, count, pagination) are always kept; unknown paths are ignored; empty/absent = full response.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 20,
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Public (no key)' is valuable context about authentication, but it omits whether the tool is read-only, rate-limited, or what the response format looks like. The auth transparency helps, but more is needed for a lookup tool.
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, well front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, incomplete parameter documentation (cloud undocumented). The description gives only the bare minimum: what it does and that it's public. For a batch lookup tool with 3 parameters, this is incomplete.
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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. The 'ids' parameter is somewhat self-explanatory, but 'cloud' is completely undocumented in both schema and description, and 'fields' has schema documentation but no mention in the description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool's core purpose.
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+resource: 'Batch catalog lookup by ids.' This is clear and distinguishes from the singular 'uxc_get_product' sibling by emphasizing batch mode. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or clarify what 'catalog' encompasses relative to search_catalog.
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?
Implies usage via 'batch' and 'by ids', but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. An agent must infer that this tool is for multiple known IDs versus uxc_search_catalog for discovery or uxc_get_product for a single item.
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.