okun-koneosa

search_shop_policies_and_faqs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Okun Koneosa's shop policies and terms.

Covers delivery terms, privacy policy, terms of service, the consumer right of withdrawal / returns, and company information. Use this instead of guessing when the customer asks about delivery times, shipping costs, returns, warranty or how their data is handled.

Args: query: Finnish keyword, e.g. "palautus", "toimitusaika", "takuu", "toimituskulut". Leave empty to list all sections. limit: Maximum sections to return (1-20, default 5).

Returns: JSON with: - sections: each with page, page_title, heading, content and url - total: how many sections matched - query: the term that was searched

Notes: - Content is split by heading, so you get the relevant paragraph rather than a whole page. Always cite the url so the customer can read the full terms. - These are the shop's own terms. They do not override Finnish consumer law.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max sections (1-20)
`query`	No	What to look for, e.g. 'palautus', 'toimitusaika'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`total`	Yes
`sections`	No

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that content is split by heading to return relevant paragraphs, advises to cite url, and notes that shop terms do not override Finnish law. Annotations are consistent and description adds value beyond them.

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?

Well-structured with Args, Returns, and Notes sections. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 2 simple parameters, an output schema described in Returns, and annotations, the description provides all needed context including behavior, limitations, and guidance. No gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, and the description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'palautus', 'toimitusaika') and explains behavior when query is empty. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches usage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states the tool searches Okun Koneosa's shop policies and FAQs. Lists specific topics (delivery, privacy, returns, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_catalog which handles products.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of guessing when the customer asks about delivery times, shipping costs, returns, warranty or how their data is handled.' Provides concrete usage context and alternatives.

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

All okun-koneosa tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

search_catalog and search_shop_catalog are exact duplicates with identical descriptions and arguments, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish them. The other three tools are distinct, but having two tools that do the same thing creates genuine ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, get_, search_). However, the duplicate functionality is named inconsistently (search_catalog vs search_shop_catalog), which is a minor deviation from naming clarity.

Tool Count4/5

With 5 tools the count is within the reasonable range for a shop catalog server. However, one tool is redundant, effectively reducing the unique functionality to 4 tools, which is still acceptable but not ideal.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers product search, product details, cart link creation, and policy lookup, which are the core operations for a catalog-driven shop. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct category listing) but these are mitigated by external REST endpoints and the tools work together for common workflows.

Resources

Need Help?