Canonical software product facts with sources — pricing, features, integrations, platform, and limits, where every fact carries a source URL and a last-verified date. Use to verify software claims (e.g. current pricing) or to gather grounded data before recommending or comparing tools. Accepts a product name or domain (e.g. "hubspot.com").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Product name or canonical domain, e.g. "hubspot.com". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes that results include source URLs and last-verified dates, indicating data freshness and verifiability. No annotations provided, but the description conveys the read-only, authoritative nature.
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?
Two sentences: first defines the tool's offering, second provides use cases and input format. No wasted words, front-loaded with key value proposition.
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 1-parameter tool, the description fully explains what facts are provided (with sources and dates) and when to use it. No output schema needed given the clarity.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example ('hubspot.com') and clarifies the parameter accepts product names or domains, enhancing usability.
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 provides canonical software product facts with sources, covering pricing, features, integrations, platform, and limits. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on verified facts, not comparison or search.
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?
Explicitly recommends use for verifying software claims or gathering grounded data. While it does not provide exclusions, the context signals sibling tools that cover alternative actions.
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.
