Retrieve public metadata for one Leboncoin ad URL. Excludes seller identity, contacts, precise location, payment, delivery, and account data.
Get a Leboncoin public listing. Returns public metadata for one supplied Leboncoin ad URL. It excludes seller identity and contacts, precise location, payment, delivery, and account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical public ad URL returned by leboncoin-search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful scope: it returns 'public metadata' and explicitly excludes seller identity/contacts, precise location, payment, delivery, and account data. This tells an agent exactly what it will not get, though it omits any note on auth, rate limits, or return shape.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the exclusion scope. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 simple one-param public read tool with no output schema, the description explains both what is returned (public metadata) and what is withheld, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only minor gaps (no auth/rate-limit context) keep it from a 5.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the url. The description reinforces that it accepts one ad URL but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.
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 and resource ('Get a Leboncoin public listing') and scopes it to a single ad URL, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling leboncoin_search that returns many results. An agent can tell what it fetches without opening the schema.
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 url param note ('returned by leboncoin-search') hints that you must run the search first to obtain a URL, but the description never explicitly states when to use this vs the search tool or any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.