Search for products / services defined in the account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Product code | |
| name | No | Product name / description (partial match) | |
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 20) | |
| currency | No | Filter by currency code, e.g. "RON", "EUR" | |
| stock_tracked | No | Only products whose stock is (true) / is not (false) tracked | |
| below_min_stock | No | Only stock-tracked products at or below their minimum stock level ("what is running low?") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden and it does not: it never says read-only, never mentions the default 20-result cap, result ordering, or whether matching is case-sensitive. 'Defined in the account' hints at tenant scoping but is the only extra information given.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined compression.
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?
With six optional parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs to know what a result record looks like, how limit/pagination behaves, and that omitting filters is legal and may return a truncated list. None of that is present.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description, including the useful semantic gloss on below_min_stock ("what is running low?"). The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters, so the schema-baseline of 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 verb ('Search') and resource ('products / services defined in the account'), which clearly separates it from the many create_*/update_*/delete_* siblings and the other search_* tools. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but the resource 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 guidance on when to use this versus count_records or the create/update/delete product tools, and no note that all filters are optional (an unfiltered call returns everything up to the limit). The only usage signal is the implicit word 'Search'.
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.
