Create up to 200 listings in one call. Each is independent; image URLs are re-hosted.
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": {
"listings": "<listings>"
},
"name": "bulk_create_listings"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listings | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose three useful behaviors: a hard batch ceiling of 200, that items are independent (implying no all-or-nothing atomicity), and that image URLs are re-hosted. It omits what partial failure looks like, whether the call is all-or-nothing, retry/idempotency behavior, and any rate limits or auth requirements for a write 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the batch limit, with zero filler. The second sentence packs two facts compactly, though 'Each is independent' is slightly ambiguous without elaboration.
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 bulk mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scale and per-item independence but leaves the agent guessing about failure semantics, response contents, and permission requirements. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 has a single top-level parameter (the listings array), and the description adds only one semantic detail beyond the schema: image URLs are re-hosted to first-party storage. It says nothing about required fields per item, the meaning of externalId for upsert, or how the 200 cap interacts with validation, so most meaning still comes from the nested schema.
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 verb and resource ('Create ... listings') and adds a batch scope ('up to 200 listings in one call'), which distinguishes it from the singular create_listing sibling without naming it. An agent can tell it is the bulk variant from the text alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'in one call' and 'up to 200' suggest batching is the reason to pick this over the single-item tool, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other, nor any precondition (category taxonomy, account permissions). Guidance must be inferred.
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.