Get all saved items from the user's Grabblist. Each item is a static snapshot — data reflects the moment it was saved, not current prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (default: 50) | |
| platform | No | Filter by platform (domain name, e.g. "amazon", "ebay", "trademe") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: items are static snapshots, so prices reflect the save time, not current values. This warns users about potential staleness, which is critical behavioral information.
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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that deliver a clear purpose and a key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words.
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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains what is returned (all saved items) and the snapshot nature, but does not describe the return format or default ordering. The lack of output schema is partially mitigated by the simplicity and annotations.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions (limit and platform), so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional semantic value is provided.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('all saved items from the user's Grabblist'), immediately differentiating it from sibling tools like search_saved. The added note about static snapshots further clarifies the tool's scope.
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 when to use it (when you need all saved items) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like search_saved for filtered queries. It lacks exclusions or comparative context.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with no obvious duplicates. The only potential overlap is between update_item and update_price, but the descriptions clarify that update_price is specifically for manual price corrections with history tracking.
All tool names follow the snake_case verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., add_item, create_collection, get_item_graph). Slight deviations like add_to_collection and ping are still predictable and conventional.
With 23 tools, the server sits in the heavy range (16-25). While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the count is higher than typical for a shopping-save app and may feel overwhelming, though not excessive.
The tool surface covers full CRUD for items and collections, relations, history, activity, and utilities. Minor gaps exist—such as no dedicated 'move item between collections' tool—but workarounds are possible using existing tools.
