get_label_and_claimsWhat the label must say, and which claims are allowed: the label requirements of the market and the claims rules of record (patterns that take a product out of the cosmetic class), each with its source page. Optional claims are checked against the rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claims | No | ||
| market | Yes |
| 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 cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: optional claims are checked against the rules, and returned items include source pages. This gives the agent a better sense of what will happen when invoking the tool.
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?
The description is only two sentences and front-loads the tool's purpose. The first sentence is slightly convoluted, but every clause adds meaningful information and there is 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?
Given the rich annotations and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what is returned, what the inputs represent, and how optional claims behave. Minor gaps remain around accepted market value formats and explicit routing away from sibling tools, but these are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps 'market' to the market whose label requirements are returned, and 'claims' to optional claims that are checked against the rules. It does not detail accepted formats, but the schema supplies type and array structure.
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 states a clear resource: the label requirements and claims rules for a market, each with its source page. This is more specific than a vague 'get label and claims' and includes enough detail about the cosmetic classification context to partially distinguish it from related sibling tools.
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 implies when the tool should be used: to retrieve market-specific label requirements and claims rules, and optionally check claims against those rules. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use this tool, such as when a safety label or notification requirement is needed.
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.