query_catalogLists active products in the business catalog. Returns products sorted by name, each with id, name, price (ARS), costPrice, sku, stock quantity, and weightGrams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Optional name filter (case-insensitive substring match). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as safe (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral context: only active products are listed, results are sorted by name, and specific fields (price in ARS, stock, weightGrams) are returned. No contradictions with annotations.
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 concise, well-structured sentences. The first states the core action, the second enumerates the return details. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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 query with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers expected behavior, including the sort order and returned fields. No missing context that would impede an agent's correct use.
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% for the single 'search' parameter, which includes a clear definition. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: 'Lists active products in the business catalog' with a specific verb and resource. It also details the sorting order and returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_suppliers or query_sales.
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 that this tool is for querying the business catalog of active products, implying usage for catalog lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Several tools duplicate the same underlying data in different presentation modes (get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, query_catalog vs open_catalog_selector, connection_status vs open_onboarding), creating ambiguity. Descriptions mention 'widget' vs JSON but an agent could easily pick the wrong one for a given task.
Tool names mix Spanish and English (caja_consultar_saldo vs validate_cuit) and use varying verb prefixes (open_, query_, get_, list_, find_, track_, quote_, validate_); only the open_ prefix is consistent.
22 tools sits at the high end of the borderline range; the server covers multiple domains (catalog, shipping, payments, fiscal) which justifies many tools, but some widgets and query equivalents could be consolidated.
The surface is heavily read-only: there are no create/update/delete tools for customers, suppliers, or products, and the only way to register a sale is through a widget that fires an internal function. There are also no tools to actually create a payment link or charge, leaving transactional workflows incomplete.