product_libraryThe canonical product catalog with breakeven ACoS and effective BE margin targets per product family.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | page via next_offset to reach ALL products | |
| search | No | ||
| profile_id | No | Which advertising profile (see account_profiles). Optional when the token has exactly one. | |
| include_archived | No |
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, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns breakeven ACoS and BE margin targets per product family, but it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, filtering semantics, or what happens with archived products. With annotations carrying the safety context, a 3 is appropriate.
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, well-formed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core identity ('canonical product catalog') and then states the distinguishing data content. Every word earns its place.
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?
With five optional parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this description is too thin. It omits pagination behavior, return shape, param semantics, and usage boundaries. An agent would likely need to call the tool or consult additional documentation to use it correctly.
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 40% (2 of 5 parameters documented), and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain limit, search, include_archived, or offset pagination beyond the schema's brief offset note, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 states a clear resource: 'canonical product catalog' and specific content: 'breakeven ACoS and effective BE margin targets per product family.' It does not use an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as ppc_product_report or product_cogs, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'canonical' hints at a source-of-truth role, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools that might be more appropriate for other product data needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.