Search Etsy shops by keyword to find matching sellers and retrieve their shop results.
Search Etsy shops. Returns Etsy shops matching a keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Shop search keyword | |
| limit | No | Max shops to return (default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 only states the basic action and result, but does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, sorting, default limits, or any other operational quirks. For a search tool this is minimally adequate, but it lacks depth.
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 short and front-loaded with the verb. The second sentence 'Returns Etsy shops matching a keyword' is slightly redundant with the first, but it does clarify the keyword-based nature of the search, so it earns its place. It is appropriately sized and has no excessive verbosity.
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?
This is a low-complexity 2-parameter search tool with no output schema. The description explains the basic purpose and result, but it does not describe what fields are returned for each shop, any pagination behavior, or sorting. Given the simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally complete but leaves some gaps.
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 both 'q' and 'limit' clearly described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'matching a keyword' simply restates the 'q' parameter), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Search Etsy shops' with the specific verb 'search' and the resource 'Etsy shops', and adds 'Returns Etsy shops matching a keyword' to clarify the query-based nature. It is distinct from siblings like etsy_search or etsy_shop, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from them, which prevents a 5.
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 implies the tool is for finding shops via keyword, but it gives no guidance on when to use this over sibling tools such as etsy_search, etsy_shop, or etsy_shop_listings. There are no alternatives named or exclusions given, so usage context is only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.