Practical buying answers: minimum order quantities (MOQ), lead times and express options, artwork and setup fees, decoration methods, samples, delivery and drop-shipping, payment and purchase orders, eco and Australian-made options. Use this for 'what is the minimum order', 'how fast can I get it', 'what file format for my logo' style questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Optional filter by topic tag (e.g. 'MOQ', 'artwork', 'delivery', 'eco') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must carry behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup, but does not explicitly state non-destructive nature, rate limits, or return behavior.
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: first lists topics, second gives usage examples. No wasted words; front-loaded with essential info.
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 FAQ tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, description is adequate. Could specify return format or that it returns answers, but not critical.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema: it lists example topics that map to tag values, but does not elaborate on format or behavior.
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?
Description clearly states it provides practical buying answers for specific topics (MOQ, lead times, artwork, etc.) and gives concrete example questions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product or get_quote.
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?
Description provides example questions to use it for ('what is the minimum order', etc.), indicating clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with 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 targets a distinct resource or action, from product and brand lookups to editorial collections and regional delivery info. Even similar listing tools (categories, industries, aesthetics, intents, inspirations, on-trend) are differentiated by their specific names and descriptions.
The naming pattern is strongly consistent: lowercase with underscores, and almost all tools use the get_ prefix plus a resource name. The only deviation is search_products, which uses 'search' instead of 'get', but it still follows the verb_noun structure.
With 21 tools, the server is on the heavy end of the typical range. The breadth is justified by the many distinct content types (products, brands, editorials, company info, reviews, regions, FAQ), but the count feels slightly bloated compared to leaner MCP servers.
The tool surface covers the full research and selection journey: product search, details, quotes, FAQ, company credibility, delivery areas, and inspirational content. The main gap is the lack of any transactional or order-placement tool, but that appears outside the intended scope.
