browseA page of Slumber Direct's products, optionally within a category (path or name), in stock only, sorted. Up to 50 per page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | order of the results | |
| category | No | a category path (e.g. coffee/espresso-machines) or name | |
| page_size | No | ||
| in_stock_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only repeats capabilities found in the schema and does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, pagination defaults, or error behavior for out-of-range pages.
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 that wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the essential scope and limit.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain pagination defaults, sort defaults, result contents, or how to distinguish browse from search/filter. It leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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 40%, so the description must add meaning, and it partially does by clarifying category path/name, in_stock_only, sorted output, and the 50-item page limit. It omits the page number semantics and the four sort enum values, leaving gaps.
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 states a specific resource ('Slumber Direct's products') and lists filters (category, stock, sort), making the tool's function clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search, filter, or product, so an agent must infer when to prefer browse.
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 or alternatives are provided; the description only enumerates capabilities. An agent receives no help in deciding between browse and search or filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.