store_listingsList the signed-in seller's SuperCatch store listings, newest first: status, condition, price, quantity, and product URL. Requires connecting a SuperCatch account that owns an approved store.
| 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. | |
| status | No | Only return listings in this status. |
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, and non-destructive/closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the newest-first ordering, the exact projection of fields returned, and the account-ownership prerequisite that gates a successful call.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the resource scope and return fields are front-loaded and the prerequisite is placed last where it reads as a gate. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully substitutes a field projection and states ordering, and the schema fully covers pagination and filtering. What remains unstated is how the list differs from store_inventory, the only gap an agent could plausibly stumble on.
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 100%, so limit, cursor, and status are already fully documented including the enum values and the cursor-continuation rule. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond 'newest first' implying the default sort, 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List the signed-in seller's SuperCatch store listings') plus ordering ('newest first') and the exact fields returned (status, condition, price, quantity, product URL). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling store_inventory, so an agent must infer the listings-vs-inventory boundary from the names alone.
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?
Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'signed-in seller's store'; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus store_inventory, store_orders, or lookup_store. The prerequisite ('Requires connecting a SuperCatch account that owns an approved store') is useful context but is an eligibility constraint, not a when-to-use rule.
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.