Retrieves weekly offers for a chosen store, covering price deals, coupons, daily discounts, and food-waste reductions so users can compare available savings.
Ugens tilbud i én butik. nemlig: Skarp pris, Priskup, Dagstilbud og Undgå madspild.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| antal | No | ||
| butik | No | nemlig |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful constraint — offers are retrieved for one store at a time ('i én butik') — but says nothing about result ordering, page size behavior, or what the offer categories mean for the returned data.
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?
It is short and front-loaded with the scope constraint, so nothing is bloated. But the second sentence is under-specified jargon rather than efficient information, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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, no parameter descriptions, and only read-only/open-world annotations, the description should explain what an offer record contains and what 'antal' controls. Neither is present, leaving an agent able to invoke the tool but unable to predict or interpret its results.
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 carry the burden for both parameters. 'i én butik' loosely gestures at the 'butik' parameter and the 'nemlig:' token hints at its default, but 'antal' (result count, default 25) is never mentioned, and no valid store values or limits are given.
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 first sentence identifies the resource (weekly offers) and scopes it to a single store, which lets an agent distinguish it from product/recipe search siblings. However, there is no explicit verb (fetch/list) and the second sentence is a cryptic colon-list of Danish offer categories ('Skarp pris, Priskup, Dagstilbud og Undgå madspild') whose relation to the tool's output is left implicit.
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 on when to use this versus soeg_varer or sammenlign_liste, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that this returns promotional offers rather than searchable catalog items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.