Product API JSON lookup for ecommerce product searches.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "product-api"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied externally. The description adds nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or what a lookup returns, and its word "lookup" implies a pure read while readOnlyHint=false suggests possible side effects (e.g., metering) — an unresolved tension rather than a clean contradiction.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, and the domain hint is front-loaded. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: there is no structure covering input format or expected result.
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?
This is a low-complexity, one-parameter tool with no output schema, so a short description could suffice — but it still omits query format and return shape entirely. Given zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently.
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 0% for the single required `query` parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It only implies the query relates to products and never states whether it is a keyword, product ID, barcode, or URL — information the agent needs to form a valid call.
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?
"Product API JSON lookup" largely restates the tool name, and the only added information is the domain phrase "for ecommerce product searches." There is no specific verb-resource pairing (look up what? return what?) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like ask-api or keywords-search-api.
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 phrase "for ecommerce product searches" hints at a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance. With ~30 sibling *-api tools, the agent is left to guess whether this or ask-api/ask-api-json should be called.
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.