Search Noon marketplace products across UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt by query and return title, brand, price, discount, rating, seller, and URL.
Search Noon, the largest marketplace in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt: product title, brand, price, discount, rating, seller and URL for a search query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| country | No | uae | |
| max_products | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the shape of the result set (title, brand, price, discount, rating, seller, URL), which signals a read-only catalog search. It says nothing about rate limits, data freshness, failure modes, or pagination/result-cap behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a scraping-backed search tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the marketplace and geography stated before the field list. The enumerated return fields are somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is wasted.
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 an output schema present, the description need not spell out return values, and the read-only nature of a search is inferable. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the missing guidance on country selection and result limits leaves it only minimally adequate.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the query parameter and lists the three countries that happen to match the country enum, but never explains how country changes results or what max_products (default 20) controls.
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?
Names a specific verb (search) and resource (Noon marketplace products) and scopes it to three countries, with the returned fields enumerated. It implicitly separates itself from amazon_best_sellers and web_search by naming the marketplace, but never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.
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: 'for a search query' tells the agent this is a keyword product lookup on Noon. There is no statement of when to prefer this over amazon_best_sellers or web_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.