brand_search_catalogPer-ASIN search funnel totals across ALL queries (query-less SQP): impressions, clicks, cart adds, purchases, median prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asin | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| weeks | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| period | No | ||
| seller_connection_id | No | Which seller connection (see account_sellers). Optional when the token has exactly one. |
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?
The annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful aggregation context, such as per-ASIN grouping and all-query scope, but does not disclose pagination behavior, time-window handling, or response shape. This is acceptable but not especially rich behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core resource and scope, followed by the relevant metrics. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool returns.
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 six parameters, only 17% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves important invocation details unstated, such as whether asin is required, how weeks and period interact, and what pagination controls do. It is sufficient for a default call but incomplete for confident, varied use.
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?
Only one of six parameters (seller_connection_id) has a schema description, so schema coverage is only 17%. The description hints that asin selects an ASIN and that no query filter applies, but it does not explain limit, weeks, offset, or period semantics. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.
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 identifies a specific resource: per-ASIN search funnel totals, and enumerates the metrics returned (impressions, clicks, cart adds, purchases, median prices). The 'query-less SQP' note and 'across ALL queries' clarify its scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not name the sibling it differs from.
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 phrase 'across ALL queries (query-less SQP)' implies this tool should be used for aggregate, query-less analysis rather than query-level search performance, which helps distinguish it from brand_sqp. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like brand_top_search_terms or brand_sqp, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.