Busca anúncios do vendedor já com detalhes (GET /sites/{site}/search?seller_id=). Paginado. site default MLB (Brasil). Filtro opcional q (texto), category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| site | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context such as pagination, site default, and the search scope (by seller), which goes beyond the 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that packs endpoint, default behavior, pagination, and filter details without fluff. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify return shape and major parameter usage. It mentions 'details' but not what they contain, and it misses account and pagination specifics. Adequate for basic usage but incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It covers site, q, and category, and implies limit/offset via 'paginado', but omits 'account' (likely the seller ID) and does not explain limit/offset semantics. This leaves critical parameters undocumented.
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 it searches seller listings with details, providing the exact endpoint. It explicitly mentions pagination, site default, and optional filters, making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_items or get_items.
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 gives clear context: searching listings by seller with details, paginated, and filterable by text or category. It implies this is for when you need seller-specific search results, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it compared to other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.