list_productsList the affiliate products, with the price each had on the day it was checked. Filter by product category.
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": "list_products"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | A product category slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context: prices are a snapshot 'on the day it was checked,' warning the agent that values may be stale rather than live. It stops short of saying anything about result ordering, pagination, or behavior on an empty/unmatched category.
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?
Two short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. The subordinate clause about per-day prices is slightly convoluted in phrasing but carries real information, so nothing is wasted.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description covers the resource, the returned attribute (price snapshot) and the available filter. Annotations handle safety and there is no output schema to explain, so the only residual gap is pagination/result-size behavior.
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 100% and the single 'category' parameter is fully documented as a slug with a pattern and length bounds. The description's 'Filter by product category' largely restates the schema and adds no slug format, case, or optionality detail (0 required params) beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Starts with a specific verb+resource ('List the affiliate products') and adds qualifying detail about what is returned ('the price each had on the day it was checked'). The plural 'List' plus the category filter implicitly distinguishes it from the singular get_product sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 clause 'Filter by product category' implies the tool's usage and how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as get_product for a single item or search_listings for keyword lookups. Usage must be inferred from the verb.
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.