Webanto

List product copy proposals

webanto_list_copy_proposals

Read-onlyIdempotent

List AI-written product copy awaiting or carrying a review decision. Each entry pairs the store's current title, description, categories and tags with the proposed SEO title, meta description, description, categories and tags. Oldest proposal first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "webanto_list_copy_proposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	One-based result page to return.
`status`	No	Review decision status of the copy proposals to return.	unreviewed
`page_size`	No	Maximum products or proposals returned per page.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`counts`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`proposals`	Yes
`pagination`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two things the annotations do not: a deterministic ordering ('Oldest proposal first') and the pairing structure returned (current title/description/categories/tags alongside proposed SEO title/meta description/etc.), which is genuinely useful for interpreting results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each doing work: scope first, record shape second, ordering last. No filler, no restating of the title, and the most decision-relevant constraint is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, content and ordering adequately. Only the relationship to the single-proposal getter and to other status filters is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so page, page_size and the status enum are already fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'awaiting or carrying a review decision' loosely maps to the status values but adds no new syntax, defaults, or filtering rules beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb plus resource ('List AI-written product copy') and narrows the scope to proposals 'awaiting or carrying a review decision', then enumerates the fields each entry contains. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular webanto_get_copy_proposal, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The framing around review decisions implies the review workflow and the default 'unreviewed' status is stated in the schema, but the description never says when to use this versus fetching a single proposal or filtering by another status. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Webanto tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?