Search attributed current electronic-component product, availability, lead-time, and price data from Mouser. Results retain provider, observation time, and merchant URLs; no checkout or order is created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| search_type | No | part_number | |
| manufacturer | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| cached | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| attribution | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral context: results retain provider, observation time, and merchant URLs, and no checkout/order is created. This goes beyond the annotations by describing output characteristics and confirming side-effect-free behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys what the tool does and its key side-effect boundary. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and the no-order boundary, and the output schema likely explains return values. However, it leaves parameter semantics completely unaddressed, making it less complete for a tool with 0% schema description coverage. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0% for 4 parameters, yet the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain the meaning of 'query', 'limit', 'search_type', or 'manufacturer', nor the difference between part_number and keyword search. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 searches for electronic-component data (product, availability, lead-time, price) from Mouser, using the verb 'search' and a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from transactional tools by clarifying that no checkout or order is created.
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 provides clear context: this is for retrieving live, attributed component data from Mouser, with no order side-effect. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'search_products', but the negative boundary ('no checkout or order is created') helps disambiguate from order-related 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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.