Retrieve an eBay seller's feedback summary, detailed ratings, and recent review cards from public feedback pages by seller username.
Get eBay seller feedback. Returns normalized seller feedback summary, detailed ratings, and recent review cards from the public eBay seller feedback tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Feedback page number | |
| seller | Yes | eBay seller username | |
| per_page | No | Reviews per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / per_page / enumAdded value: +[
+ 24,
+ 48,
+ 72
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context: the operation is a read ('Get'), the data is 'normalized', and it comes from the 'public eBay seller feedback tab', implying no authentication is required. However, it omits pagination behavior, error cases (e.g., invalid seller), and any rate-limit concerns.
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 sentences with no filler; the verb+resource is front-loaded and the return-type detail earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it does not use the spare capacity to add usage routing.
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?
With no output schema, the description's brief catalog of returns (summary, detailed ratings, review cards) is the agent's only guide to response content, which is adequate but shallow. Input parameters are fully covered, but pagination semantics and response structure are left to inference, and no sibling differentiation exists.
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%, so the schema already documents seller, page, and per_page with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get eBay seller feedback') and further details the returned content (normalized summary, detailed ratings, recent review cards), which clearly signals this tool is about feedback data. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like ebay_seller, ebay_seller_about, and ebay_seller_shop, though it never names them or states the contrast explicitly.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many eBay siblings (ebay_seller, ebay_seller_about, ebay_seller_shop, ebay_search). An agent must infer from the name and 'feedback' mention that this is the feedback-specific endpoint, with no exclusions or alternative routing provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.