search_productsSearch the shop's products by name, maker, collection, color or SKU — every word must match. Returns price, sale price, whether it's per yard, stock, colors and the product url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | e.g. "riley blake stripe", "magic dot raspberry", "kona black", "5230-33" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the matching logic ('every word must match') and the exact return fields (price, sale price, per-yard flag, stock, colors, URL). It does not mention pagination or error cases, but for a read-only search it is sufficiently transparent.
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-structured sentence that front-loads the action and constraints, then lists the return fields. No redundant or filler content; every element adds value.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields. It covers the search semantics and result contents. It omits details about the 'limit' parameter's effect on output quantity, but the schema's default and min/max constraints make this inferable. Overall, it is complete for a read-only search tool.
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 50%: the 'query' parameter is described with examples, while 'limit' has no textual description. The tool description enriches the 'query' meaning by listing searchable fields and the matching rule, but it does not compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter. Given the partial coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's action: searching the shop's products by specific fields (name, maker, collection, color, SKU) and defines the matching rule. It is specific and distinguishes itself from generic siblings like 'search' by identifying the resource (products) and the search criteria.
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 description implies this is for product searches but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'search' or 'fetch'. There is no guidance on exclusions or when not to use this tool. The context is clear from the name and description, but explicit alternatives are not mentioned.
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.