Etsy listing checker
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Tags separated by commas, semicolons or new lines. Errors: more than 13 tags, a tag over 20 characters, a repeated tag, a tag starting with a hyphen or apostrophe. | |
| title | Yes | The listing title. Errors: more than 140 characters; the characters % : & used more than once each; any of $ ^ \ and the backtick. Everything else is advice. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / tags / descriptionPrevious value: -"Tags separated by commas or new lines"New value: +"Tags separated by commas, semicolons or new lines. Errors: more than 13 tags, a tag over 20 characters, a repeated tag, a tag starting with a hyphen or apostrophe."Input schema / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"The listing title. Errors: more than 140 characters; the characters % : & used more than once each; any of $ ^ \\ and the backtick. Everything else is advice."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether results are pass/fail, whether it calls Etsy's live API, or what the caller gets back, which is the context that would actually help.
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?
Three words is under-specification dressed as brevity, not conciseness. There is no front-loaded verb or scope statement for a reader to anchor on.
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 is the only place to explain what a "check" returns — validation errors, warnings, advice — and it says nothing. For a validation tool whose output shape is the whole point, this is a material gap despite the strong parameter schema.
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 parameter descriptions are rich (tag limits, forbidden characters, error-vs-advice distinction). Per the rubric this sets a baseline of 3; the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.
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?
"Etsy listing checker" essentially restates the tool name (ecommerce_etsy_listing_check) with no verb describing what checking entails — validation of title/tags against Etsy rules, scoring, or advice. An agent cannot tell what the tool actually does or how it differs in intent from the unrelated publishing siblings.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The word "checker" weakly implies pre-publication validation, but the agent must infer even that, and nothing distinguishes it from the publishing_* siblings.
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.