Crawlora MCP

wish_product_related

Read-only

A Wish product's related-item rails: shelves of similar products, grouped by rail (e.g. general similar items, a faster-shipping-eligible subset). id is taken from a search result's product_id field or a product page's URL. A faster-shipping rail with no eligible items, or a nonexistent id, returns a normal, empty result rather than an error.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "count": "<count>"
    },
    "name": "wish_product_related"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Wish product id, a 24-character hex id from a search result's product_id field
`count`	Yes	Number of items to return per rail, 1 to 70, defaults to 10

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / count / description

Added value: +"Number of items to return per rail, 1 to 70, defaults to 10"

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"Wish product id, a 24-character hex id from a search result's product_id field"

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real behavioral context: the rail grouping (general vs faster-shipping subset) and the important fact that a nonexistent id or empty faster-shipping rail returns an empty result rather than an error. That is genuine non-obvious behavior worth surfacing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then id sourcing and the empty-result caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return structure needn't be explained. The description covers purpose, id sourcing, and the empty-result behavior, leaving little for an agent to guess when calling a 2-param read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds some context on id provenance (search result vs page URL), but count semantics ('per rail') largely restate the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('related-item rails: shelves of similar products, grouped by rail') and clarifies it is distinct from the product-detail and review siblings. An agent can tell this returns related/similar products rather than the product itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly explains where to source the id (a search result's product_id field or a product page's URL), which is the key usage prerequisite. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative sibling, so it falls short of the top tier.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Crawlora MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?