URL templates for chained queries — product page, per-product alternatives, category alternatives, magnet guides, OG images, and full LLM-ready documentation. Use to give the user/agent canonical links they can fetch or render directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states it provides URL templates, implying read-only, but does not clarify if data is static or fetched externally. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. First sentence enumerates output types, second gives usage. 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?
Tool has no parameters or output schema, so description is the sole source. It explains purpose and usage but does not specify return format (e.g., array of strings, structured object). Adequate for a simple 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?
Input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 applies; description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable.
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?
Description explicitly states the tool provides URL templates for specific purposes (product page, alternatives, guides, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_catalog_stats and scan_barcode.
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?
Explicit usage guidance: 'Use to give the user/agent canonical links they can fetch or render directly.' Does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but context is clear.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct function: catalog stats, magnet guide samples, URL templates, barcode scanning, and missing product submission. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_catalog_stats, get_magnet_samples, get_resources, scan_barcode, submit_missing_product.
5 tools are well-scoped for a scanner/indexing service. Each tool provides necessary functionality without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Covers core operations: scanning, submitting missing products, retrieving catalog info, and resources. Minor gap: no tool to update product data or manage conditions, but these are handled via parameters or external links.