list_productsList Mid-Continental Dental Supply's Renew product line (public catalog). Returns slug, name, short description, regulatory status and the canonical mid-continental.com URL for each product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'public catalog' adds light context. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or any preconditions, leaving the agent to infer safety from 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?
Single sentence with clear verb ('List'), specific subject ('Renew product line'), and concise list of return fields. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.
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?
Despite listing return fields, the description fails to explain the optional locale parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. No mention of possible limits or pagination, leaving gaps for a proper usage understanding.
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 lone parameter 'locale' is not described at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on what locales mean or how to use them, making the parameter opaque.
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 specifies exactly what is listed ('Mid-Continental Dental Supply's Renew product line') and what fields are returned (slug, name, short description, regulatory status, canonical URL). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product (single product) and get_company_info (company info).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for listing the public catalog, but does not mention when not to use it or provide context for choosing between sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: company info, distribution info, product details, and product listing. No overlapping purposes, so an agent can clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_company_info, get_distribution_info, get_product, list_products). Consistent and predictable naming.
Four tools is appropriate for a focused server providing public information about a dental supply company and its products. The count is slightly low but well-scoped for the purpose.
The tool set covers the core public-facing aspects: company info, distribution, product listing and details. Missing search or filtering capabilities, but for a simple catalog, it's reasonably complete.