cf_render_search_resultsTurn a canonical cf_search_offers structured response into a compact branded CenuFiltrs HTML resource for MCP hosts that support component rendering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| renderId | Yes | ||
| expiresAt | Yes | ||
| renderTool | Yes | ||
| resourceUri | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes | ||
| resourceMimeType | Yes | ||
| resourceTtlSeconds | Yes |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the output is a compact branded HTML resource and that it targets component-rendering-capable hosts, clarifying the tool's transformation behavior and environment requirements.
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 description is a single sentence that includes the input, output, and target capability. Every word contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized and immediately front-loads the core purpose.
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?
The tool is a transformer with a complex input schema, but the description clearly states the input source, output type, and host requirement. An output schema exists, so return values are covered by structured data. The only minor gap is not mentioning explicit prerequisites or fallback behavior for unsupported hosts, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation in the intended context.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies the single parameter 'response' as a 'canonical cf_search_offers structured response', directly linking it to a sibling tool and telling the agent exactly what to pass. This is a strong semantic pointer, though it does not elaborate on the internal structure beyond that reference.
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 a specific action: transforming a canonical cf_search_offers structured response into an HTML resource. It names the input source and output format, making the purpose distinct from all sibling tools (e.g., cf_search_offers itself, cf_list_offers). The verb 'Turn' and resource 'branded CenuFiltrs HTML resource' are specific and unambiguous.
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 when to use the tool: after obtaining a cf_search_offers response and when the MCP host supports component rendering. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as what to do if the host does not support component rendering. The context is clear but lacks explicit boundaries.
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.