discoverカタログから条件（IP・キャラ・予算・用途）に合う候補SKUを探す。実際に出品されているかは保証しない。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | 作品ID（例: kingdom-hearts） | |
| limit | No | 最大件数（任意、既定10） | |
| terms | No | data/ip_terms.csv の固有語（陣営・ワールド・キーブレード等）が名称・別名・備考に含まれる商品だけに絞る（任意） | |
| purpose | No | 用途（任意、既定は any） | |
| character | No | キャラ名（日英どちらでも可、任意） | |
| budget_jpy | No | 予算上限（円、任意） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one important disclosure — results are candidates and actual availability is not guaranteed — but does not state whether this is read-only, whether results are paginated, or how many results are returned beyond the schema's limit parameter.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat immediately follows as relevant secondary information.
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 six-parameter tool with nested filtering and no output schema, the description covers the main filters and the key caveat. It leaves return-shape expectations vague beyond 'candidate SKU' and does not clarify how nested term filters combine with other filters.
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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the nested terms object and enum values. The description mentions IP, character, budget, and purpose but omits terms and limit, adding little beyond the schema.
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 verb and resource: searching the catalog for candidate SKUs matching IP, character, budget, and purpose. It distinguishes the tool from resolve_listing-style siblings by framing it as catalog discovery rather than listing resolution, though it does not name the alternatives.
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 — search the catalog when you have conditions and want candidate SKUs — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with siblings such as resolve_listing. The caveat about availability is useful but is not an alternative-selection rule.
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.