Capterra product profile: name, description, category, aggregate rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Capterra product id, the numeric id in a /p/{id}/{slug}/ URL, e.g. 135003. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on auth requirements, rate limits, whether unknown ids return an error, or freshness of the aggregate rating. The field list largely duplicates the output schema.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is slightly terse to the point of being a fragment, but nothing wasted.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully documented. However, for a lookup tool embedded in a large search/review family, the absence of any routing or prerequisite context leaves a real gap.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains product_id as the numeric segment of a /p/{id}/{slug}/ URL with an example. The description contributes nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific resource (Capterra product profile) and enumerates the fields returned (name, description, category, aggregate rating), which lets an agent distinguish it from capterra_search and capterra_reviews. The verb is only implied, but the intent (fetch one product's profile) is 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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given siblings like capterra_search (which produces the product_id) and capterra_reviews, the definition never says to call this after a search or how it differs from the reviews tool.
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.
