Look up Amazon search volume, depth, trend, and 12-month history for a keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Two-letter marketplace code (us, uk, de, etc.) | us |
| keyword | Yes | The keyword phrase to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns search volume, depth, trend, and history, implying a read operation. However, it omits details like rate limits, authentication, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral traits unclear.
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 sentence with no fluff, effectively front-loading the key purpose. It could be slightly enhanced with structure, but it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview of the metrics returned. However, it lacks details on the output format or pagination, leaving the agent to infer the structure.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions for 'keyword' and 'country'; it only summarizes the tool's purpose.
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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'Amazon keyword metrics', specifying outputs like search volume, depth, trend, and 12-month history. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_keywords and related_keywords through this specific 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulk_keywords or related_keywords. The description does not indicate when not to use it or mention any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
