Gyártók/márkák listázása az XFish.hu webáruházból. Visszaadja a gyártó ID-kat, amelyek a search_products manufacturer_id paraméteréhez szükségesek.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Gyártónév szűrés (opcionális, pl: "shimano", "daiwa") | |
| webshop_id | No | Bolt ID: 0=Horgász, 1=Játék, 2=Kisállat, 3=Barkács (alapértelmezett: 0) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns manufacturer IDs, omitting information about read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, pagination, or whether it fetches all records. This is insufficient for transparency.
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 sentences, zero wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second links to another tool and specifies output value. Excellent conciseness.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage link. However, it is vague about the return format (e.g., whether it includes names alongside IDs) and does not mention the webshop_id parameter's effect on results.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides; it does not elaborate on how the parameters affect output or provide usage examples.
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 lists manufacturers/brands from the XFish.hu webshop and specifies that the output (manufacturer IDs) is needed for the search_products tool's manufacturer_id parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_categories and get_product_details.
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 clear context: the tool is used to obtain manufacturer IDs for filtering in search_products. It implicitly tells when to use it (before search_products with a manufacturer filter), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: categories, manufacturers, product details, and search. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., get_categories, search_products).
Four tools is an appropriate scope for a read-only product catalog API, covering all essential query operations without being too many or too few.
The set covers product browsing and search well, but lacks a direct method to list all products (e.g., by category) without using search, which is a minor gap.
