cf_list_offersList offers with filtering by product or retailer. Shows prices across stores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| productId | No | Filter by product UUID | |
| retailerId | No | Filter by retailer UUID |
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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that prices across stores are shown, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination behavior or result limits beyond what schema parameters imply.
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 short sentences front-load the action ('List offers') and provide essential scope with zero wasted words. Excellent conciseness.
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 list tool with 6 optional params, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and basic behavior. It is missing explicit guidance on pagination/sorting usage, though those are documented in the schema.
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 schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the context that productId and retailerId are the filtering dimensions, but this is already implied by the schema's 'Filter by...' field descriptions.
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 lists offers and supports filtering by product or retailer, with 'Shows prices across stores' adding scope. It is specific verb+resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling cf_search_offers.
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 usage for listing and filtering offers but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tools like cf_search_offers are not mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent based on context.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, particularly cf_category_hierarchy vs cf_list_categories (both provide category taxonomy paths) and cf_search_offers vs cf_list_offers (both return offers). Descriptions help, but the boundaries between category-related tools and offer listing/search could confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent cf_ verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., cf_add_wish, cf_list_retailers, cf_search_offers). The convention is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer tool behavior from the name.
With 22 tools, the server covers a broad domain but is slightly heavy. The count is reasonable for a price-comparison service with search, product, price, retailer, user, and comment functionality, though it exceeds the typical ideal range.
The toolset provides solid coverage of the price-comparison domain: search, categories, offers, products, retailers, price history/summary, deal analysis, wishlist, comments/reviews, and user search history. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no product-specific reviews, no comment edit/delete), but core workflows are fully supported.