chrome_web_store_extensionChrome Web Store listing for ONE extension by its 32-character id: name, publisher, rating, rating count, user count, version, last-updated date, category, website. Public listing data, no login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The extension's 32-character Chrome Web Store id, e.g. "cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm" (from its store URL). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Public listing data, no login' tells the agent no authentication or credentials are needed.
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?
One front-loaded sentence: identity of the resource first, then the returned fields, then the auth note. Zero filler and every clause is informative.
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 single-entity read with no output schema, listing the exact fields returned (name, publisher, rating, count, version, date, category, website) plus the no-login note gives the agent everything needed. Nothing material is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented in the schema with an example, so the description's '32-character id' detail is redundant. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Chrome Web Store listing for ONE extension by its 32-character id', and enumerates the returned fields. The 'ONE extension' scope cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling search and by_publisher 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 'by its 32-character id' framing implies this is the single-entity lookup as opposed to search or by_publisher, but no sibling is named and no when/when-not guidance is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.