Search public Leboncoin listings by location to retrieve normalized listing cards, giving you structured data for market analysis without seller or account details.
Search Leboncoin public listings. Returns normalized public listing cards from one Leboncoin location page. This endpoint excludes contacts, seller profiles, accounts, and transaction data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | Public Leboncoin location slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it excludes contacts, seller profiles, accounts, and transaction data, which is useful, but it doesn't explain pagination, return structure, or any rate limits.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It has minimal waste, though the exclusion list could be more compact.
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 existence of a sibling tool 'leboncoin_listing' and simple schema, the description is somewhat complete for calling with a single parameter, but lacks detail on the 'location' parameter format and pagination behavior, which could be important for effective use.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds the context that 'location' is a slug, which adds some meaning, but doesn't explain how to obtain the slug or what formats are acceptable.
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 that this tool searches Leboncoin public listings and returns normalized public listing cards from one location page, which is specific and distinguishes it from other search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool that it differs from, though it implies a distinction from leboncoin_listing.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like leboncoin_listing. It mentions 'one location page' which hints at the scope, but there's no clear recommendation or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.