UCP 2026-04-08 catalog search over the engagement tiers. Returns UCP product objects in structuredContent. Call with no query for the whole catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Free text, e.g. "sprint" or "monitoring". Omit for everything. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses the return container. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated or ordered, or how errors or empty queries are handled.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs in the catalog version, scope, return format, and no-query behavior efficiently.
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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main call pattern and return type. However, without an output schema or annotations, it would benefit from clarifying the structuredContent shape, pagination behavior, and the relationship to lookup_catalog.
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%, and the schema already documents the query parameter with examples and the omit-for-everything behavior. The description restates the omit behavior but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 identifies the operation ('search'), the resource ('catalog'), and the scope ('over the engagement tiers'), and it states the return type (UCP product objects in structuredContent). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling lookup_catalog, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It provides one direct usage rule: 'Call with no query for the whole catalog.' This gives clear invocation guidance, but it never explains when to prefer this tool over lookup_catalog or the other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
Checkout, scan, and report tools are clearly distinct, but catalog access is split across list_offers, search_catalog, lookup_catalog, and get_offer. search_catalog with no query effectively duplicates list_offers, and lookup_catalog overlaps search_catalog for ID-based resolution.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern such as create_checkout_session, list_offers, scan_store, and report_problem. The verb style is uniform and clearly maps to each action.
Seven tools is within a reasonable scope for this server, but four of them are overlapping offer/catalog retrieval variants. The count is slightly padded because list_offers, search_catalog, lookup_catalog, and get_offer could likely be consolidated.
The core commerce flow is covered: discover offers, retrieve details, create a checkout session, scan a store, and report problems. Minor gaps exist around order/licence status checks and scan history, but these are external or non-essential for the stated purpose.