Trigger a (re)generation of the feed file. Returns {feedId, action:'export', status, feedStatus}. status is 'queued' (async via the export queue — normal) or 'done'. After this, poll get_feed_status until status becomes 'generated'. feed_id from list_feeds / create_feed; project_id OPTIONAL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate that this is not read-only; the description adds the important async behavior: status is 'queued' via the export queue and the agent must poll get_feed_status. This is genuinely useful context beyond what annotations convey.
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 dense sentences cover the action, return shape, async behavior, polling step, and parameter provenance. Every sentence earns its place and key information is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter trigger tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it gives the return fields, status semantics, the required next step, and parameter source. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that feed_id comes from list_feeds / create_feed and that project_id is optional. It could further explain project_id's purpose, but for two integer parameters this is reasonable.
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 specific action: 'Trigger a (re)generation of the feed file.' It clearly identifies the resource and differentiates this tool from read-only siblings by emphasizing the export action and async status response.
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 explicit follow-up guidance: 'poll get_feed_status until status becomes generated.' It also tells the agent where feed_id comes from and that project_id is optional. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Tools are organized around distinct resources (ads, marketplaces, feeds, orders, rules, sources) with clear action verbs, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate near-pairs like get_feed_status vs ad_status or set_feed_filter vs set_feed_attribute_filter. A few similarly named status/action pairs (e.g. ad_status vs get_ad, run_ad_item_action vs run_ad_operation) require careful reading, but overall the purposes are separable.
The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, set_*, run_*, test_*). Minor deviations like ad_status and marketplace_status (noun-based status tools) and koongo_knowledge break the pattern slightly, but the convention is clearly recognizable and predictable.
At 105 tools, the surface is extreme and far beyond the 50+ threshold, even for a complex e-commerce integration domain. Much of the bloat comes from systematic triplication across ads, marketplaces, and feeds (e.g. three nearly identical map_*_attribute tools, three list_*_items, three get_*_report) that a generic resource parameter could have consolidated.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of feeds, ads, marketplaces, order connections, rules, and imports, including create/read/update/delete, status monitoring, item-level actions, validation, repair, and restore. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete for standalone order connections and limited update capabilities for some entities, but these are workable and do not create dead ends for the core workflows.
