Produkty jednej kolekcie podľa slugu (z list_collections).
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": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_collection"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug kolekcie |
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 disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns products, but does not mention pagination, read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The transparency is minimal.
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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the key information (products of collection). It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could include slightly more detail without harming conciseness.
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 has one parameter and no output schema. The description lacks details about the return structure, error handling, or usage context (e.g., authentication). While simple, it is incomplete for a tool that could benefit from specifying output format.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking the slug to list_collections, which is meaningful beyond the schema's simple 'Slug kolekcie'. However, it does not elaborate on format or constraints.
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 it retrieves products of a collection by slug, referencing list_collections as the source. It uses a specific verb ('Produkty' meaning products) and resource (collection), differentiating it from siblings like get_product or list_collections. However, it does not explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.
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 that the slug comes from list_collections, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites beyond the implied reference.
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.