my_watchlistList listings on the signed-in user's SuperCatch watchlist with title, price, condition, listing status, any price-alert target, and product URL. Requires connecting a SuperCatch account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return (1-50). | |
| cursor | No | Continue with nextCursor from the previous page, keeping the same status and limit. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Continue with nextCursor from the previous page, keeping the same status and limit.",
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious authentication prerequisite, which the annotations do not express. It does not discuss failure behavior when no account is connected, which keeps it from a 5.
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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing as a qualifier. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (title, price, condition, status, price-alert target, URL), and pagination is fully specified in the schema. Auth requirement plus field enumeration make it complete for a two-parameter read 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with limit and cursor both documented including bounds and the nextCursor continuation pattern. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List listings on the signed-in user's SuperCatch watchlist') and enumerates the fields returned. An agent can distinguish this from store_listings or search_marketplace purely from the description, since it scopes to the signed-in user's own watchlist.
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?
Gives a clear precondition ('Requires connecting a SuperCatch account') that determines whether the tool is callable at all. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as store_listings or search_marketplace, so exclusions are left to inference.
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.