Get one of the shop's listings by id (any status).
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>"
},
"name": "get_listing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'Get' plus '(any status)' do convey that this is a safe read that returns listings regardless of lifecycle state — a genuinely useful trait versus a status-filtered list. It says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist (null vs error) or any permission/visibility constraints on the shop's listings.
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; the resource and the lookup key come before the parenthetical qualifier. It is tight, though the extreme brevity leaves obvious questions unanswered rather than the wording being wasteful.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and the key scoping fact ('any status'). Missing only the not-found/error behavior, which is a moderate rather than critical gap at this complexity level.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It confirms 'id' identifies a specific listing and that status does not matter, but adds no format detail (numeric, opaque string, prefixed id), leaving the agent to guess the expected value shape.
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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('one of the shop's listings'), and the lookup key ('by id'). It also scopes with '(any status)', which distinguishes a single-record fetch from a filtered list, though it never names list_listings as the alternative.
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: the agent must infer it should call this when it already has a listing id rather than browsing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_listings or analytics_listings, and no mention of what to do when the id is unknown.
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.