Busca anúncios de veículos na Webmotors. Filtre por marca e modelo; pagine e ordene. Retorna { total, results[] } com { id, title, make, model, version, year, km, price, fipePercent, slug, detailUrl, seller, photo }. Use o slug em wm_detail e o id em wm_market_price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| brand | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| perPage | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the response structure and downstream usage tips, going beyond the annotations. It does not mention auth or default pagination limits, but nothing contradicts the annotations and the extra context is meaningful.
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 three concise sentences: a purpose, a return specification, and downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or 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?
With no output schema, the description provides all return fields and the `total`/`results[]` wrapper, which is essential. It also connects to sibling tools. However, the 'path' parameter is undocumented and order semantics are vague, making it not fully complete for a 6-parameter tool.
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?
The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains brand/model filtering and pagination/order, covering most parameters, but 'path' remains unexplained and 'order' has no allowed values or defaults. This leaves a notable gap.
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 searches vehicle listings on Webmotors, with filtering, pagination, and ordering. It also specifies the return shape and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing wm_detail and wm_market_price.
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 to use the tool (searching listings) and provides cross-tool guidance: use the returned slug for wm_detail and id for wm_market_price. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like webmotors_category or webmotors_filters, but the context is clear.
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.