aplus_documentFetch ONE A+ content document LIVE, including its full contentModuleList — the copy source for edits (the aplus_content dataset holds metadata only). List keys via data_query 'aplus_content'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| marketplace_id | No | ||
| seller_connection_id | No | Which seller connection (see account_sellers). Optional when the token has exactly one. | |
| content_reference_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the request is LIVE (not cached) and that the response includes the full contentModuleList, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the dash clearly separates the main purpose from the dataset distinction and key-listing tip.
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 exists, so the description must carry the return-value explanation. It does so by promising 'full contentModuleList' and linking it to editing. It does not detail optional-parameter effects or error/pagination behavior, but for a single-document live read the description is nearly sufficient.
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% (only seller_connection_id has a schema description). The description partially compensates by explaining that content_reference_key values can be listed via data_query 'aplus_content', but it does not clarify marketplace_id or the key's exact format. Useful hint, but not complete param guidance.
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 ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('ONE A+ content document LIVE'), and deliberately contrasts it with the aplus_content dataset ('holds metadata only'). Also names a sibling tool (data_query) for listing keys, so an agent can tell them apart.
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 tells the agent to list keys via data_query 'aplus_content' and explains that the dataset contains metadata only — effectively saying 'use this tool when you need the full live document, use data_query only for keys/metadata.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.