Depop's full brand directory (id, name, slug), not just brands with active listings -- resolves depop_search's brand_ids filter to human-readable names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds a real behavioral fact beyond them: it returns the ENTIRE brand directory, not just brands with active listings. It does not discuss size, pagination, or caching, but the scope disclosure is the salient trait for a directory tool.
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 sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the interoperability note. No filler, every clause earns its place.
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?
Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers scope and purpose adequately; only a note on directory size or refresh behavior would add value for a no-arg, read-only lookup.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description notes the returned fields (id, name, slug), which is the only parameter-adjacent detail possible for a no-arg call.
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 (Depop's full brand directory) with the returned fields (id, name, slug), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the partial directory of brands with active listings. It also names the sibling (depop_search) it interoperates with, so an agent can place it immediately.
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?
Gives a concrete when-to-use: resolving depop_search's brand_ids filter into human-readable names, and clarifies the scope difference (full directory vs. active-listing brands). It stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' (e.g. use depop_search_facets for browsing), so it's strong but not complete.
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.
