webhallen-mcp

Compare Webhallen products

compare_products

Compare 2–8 products by ID or URL side by side using full details; one failed lookup doesn't block the rest.

Instructions

Fetch full details for several products at once (by id or URL) for side-by-side comparison. Returns one detail object per input; one failing doesn't fail the rest.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "idsOrUrls": "<idsOrUrls>"
    },
    "name": "compare_products"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`idsOrUrls`	Yes	2-8 product ids or URLs to compare

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: one result object per input, and partial-failure tolerance ('one failing doesn't fail the rest'). It omits how a failed item is represented in the output, result ordering, and any read-only/auth character, so meaningful gaps remain for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the batch purpose front-loaded and the failure semantics second; no filler or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input acceptance, and return cardinality, which is most of what an agent needs. The only shortfall is not specifying how per-item failures surface in the returned objects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already covers both the 2-8 bounds and the id-or-URL acceptance. The description's '(by id or URL)' restates the schema rather than adding syntax, format, or mixing rules, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch full details for several products') plus the batch scope ('several products at once'). The phrase 'several ... at once' implicitly contrasts with the single-item get_product sibling, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'for side-by-side comparison' gives a usage context, and the batch framing implies get_product is the choice for a single item. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative appears, so the agent must infer the routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server