List configured products being monitored for buying signals.
Each product includes: id, name, value_prop, target_audience, is_active,
created_at.
Presentation: list each product on its own line with name, status
(active/inactive), and a one-line value prop. Do NOT dump the raw
JSON — summarise inline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields and, more importantly, prescribing the presentation contract (one line per product, do not dump raw JSON). That is a real behavioral trait not available in structured fields.
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?
Three short, front-loaded lines: purpose first, then return fields, then presentation rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call and render the result correctly, with no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by listing the fields and format. It is complete for a zero-argument list tool, though it says nothing about ordering or result size, which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for parameter documentation, and it introduces no parameter-related confusion.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List configured products') and adds scope ('being monitored for buying signals'), which tells an agent this tool is distinct from write-side siblings like add_product/update_product. It does not name a sibling or spell out how it differs from reload_products, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the read-only listing nature, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as reload_products. An agent can infer it is the browse path, but nothing in the text routes it there.
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.