Search published canonical product facts. Commercial price, stock, compatibility, and lead time are returned only when separately supported by current evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| manufacturer | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing that commercial price, stock, compatibility, and lead time are returned only when supported by current evidence. This informs the agent about the tool's selective output behavior, adding useful context.
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, focused sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and a key behavioral caveat. No filler or repetition exists, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
While the description clearly states the core functionality and an important behavioral nuance, it omits any guidance on parameters, making it incomplete for effective tool usage. Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, this is acceptable but leaves clear gaps for an agent to fill via heuristics.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters (q, limit, category, manufacturer) but makes no mention of them. It does not compensate for the schema gap at all, leaving the agent to guess at the meaning and usage of each parameter.
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's action (search) and resource ('published canonical product facts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_suppliers and search_live_components. It also adds a scoping note about which product facts are returned, reinforcing its purpose.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_product or search_suppliers. The term 'canonical' implies authoritative product data, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
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.