mcp-colombia

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'obtiene' (gets) details, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful example. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or output structure, which are important for a tool without annotations or output schema.

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 100%, with the parameter 'item_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by providing an example format ('MCO123456789'), but does not elaborate on semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Obtiene el detalle completo de un producto de MercadoLibre por su ID' (Gets the complete detail of a MercadoLibre product by its ID). It specifies the verb ('obtiene'), resource ('producto de MercadoLibre'), and scope ('detalle completo'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ml_buscar_productos', which likely searches for products rather than fetching details by ID.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the parameter ('por su ID') but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this is for single-product lookups versus bulk searches, or how it differs from 'ml_buscar_productos'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.