List the marketplace listings owned by your account (with pricing and sales totals).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100. | |
| offset | No | Number of listings to skip, for paging. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Page size, 1-100."Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of listings to skip, for paging."Input schema / properties / offset / minimumAdded value: +0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately reflects the read-only nature of the operation, consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It also adds behavioral detail about the response, mentioning pricing and sales totals, which is not fully covered by the annotations alone.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes relevant output detail without wasting 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 paginated listing operation with an output schema and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the scope (owned listings) and output highlights (pricing, sales totals), making it complete without needing extra prose.
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?
Both parameters (limit and offset) have schema descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the parameter descriptions are standard pagination text and the bounds are already expressed in 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 states the tool lists marketplace listings owned by the account, using the specific verb 'List' and identifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_listing by focusing on owned listings and including pricing and sales totals.
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 usage for retrieving one's own listings, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over others. No direct guidance is given for when to use list_my_listings versus get_listing or other list tools.
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.