search_productsSearch public Alshhbaa Store product suggestions without mutating cart or checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of product suggestions to return (1-20). Defaults to 5. | |
| query | Yes | Search query for luxury lighting, chandeliers, lamps, and brass crafts (e.g. "ثريا", "chandelier"). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| structuredContent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / structuredContent / properties / productsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'without mutating cart or checkout,' which adds minor domain context (cart/checkout are untouched). It discloses nothing further about pagination, limits behavior, or result quality, and an output schema already covers return shape.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is arguably too terse to earn a 5, but nothing is wasted.
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 simple read-only search with a fully documented schema and an existing output schema, the description covers the essentials. The one gap is the absence of any routing guidance, though the single unrelated sibling makes this low-risk.
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%: both 'query' (with examples) and 'limit' (range and default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (public Alshhbaa Store product suggestions), which is clear and distinct from the only sibling read_docs. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative search tool, but the domain is unambiguous.
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 implied: search when you want product suggestions. The phrase 'without mutating cart or checkout' hints at a read-only lookup context but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives are mentioned (read_docs is unrelated).
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.