speedbot_product_listBrowse categories, search and sort all digital products. All published products from current Pro project creators appear in Top products. Use featured_offset to page through them. Similar products are allowed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| verified | No | ||
| featured_offset | No | Independent offset for Top products; follow featured_next_offset until null. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / featured_offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Independent offset for Top products; follow featured_next_offset until null.",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / verifiedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some discovery context (Top products composition, the featured paging loop) but says nothing about result volume, filtering interactions, or the vague 'Similar products are allowed' clause, which is not actionable.
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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and efficient, but 'Similar products are allowed' is an opaque sentence that adds no usable information, and the Top products/featured paging detail is split awkwardly across two sentences.
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 7-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description is too thin: it leaves the meaning of q, kind, verified, limit and offset entirely unexplained and gives no insight into the returned result shape or ordering semantics.
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 only 14%, so the description should carry the burden for q, kind, sort, limit, offset and verified. It instead mentions only featured_offset, and even that largely restates the schema's own description, leaving six parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 names a specific verb set (browse/search/sort) and a clear resource (digital products), and scopes it to 'all' products versus the current Pro project creators' published output. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list-like tools such as speedbot_product_mine, but an agent can still identify the resource unambiguously.
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?
It implies a browsing/search use case but gives no when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., product_mine for one's own products) and no exclusions. The only procedural hint, using featured_offset to page through Top products, is a mechanical note rather than selection guidance.
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.