Liste les 8 comparatifs structurés disponibles avec, pour chacun, le slug, le titre éditorial, l'URL et la liste des slugs produits inclus dans le classement (ordre = ranking éditorial).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the exact contents of each entry (slug, title, URL, product slugs) and the fixed count of 8. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but that is intuitively obvious for a list operation, so it provides sufficient behavioral context without surprises.
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 immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates the returned data. There is no redundant filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: exactly 8 comparatifs, each with slug, title, URL, and product slugs in ranking order. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly without further context.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty. The description correctly contains no parameter-specific information. Since the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, this is appropriate; there is nothing to add beyond the schema, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('les 8 comparatifs structurés') and clearly enumerates the exact fields returned for each item, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on products or search.
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 tool is a parameterless list operation, so its purpose itself implies when to use it (to retrieve all comparisons). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools (get_product, search_products) makes the distinction clear, but no explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given.
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.
The three tools have distinct purposes: retrieving a single product by slug, listing structured comparisons, and searching the product catalog. There is slight overlap between get_product and search_products since both return product details, but the use cases (exact lookup vs. filtered search) are clear.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_product, list_comparatifs, search_products. The only minor inconsistency is mixing English verbs (get, list, search) with a French noun (comparatifs), but the pattern is otherwise uniform.
With only 3 tools, the server is on the thin side but still covers the core operations for a gluten-free product catalog: retrieval, listing comparisons, and searching. It feels slightly minimal but not inadequate for a niche domain.
The server covers the main read operations: get a product, list comparisons, and search. However, there are no tools for browsing all products, getting a single comparison by slug, or accessing categories directly, which are notable gaps for a catalog-focused server.