product_catalogSearch and retrieve products with stock levels and prices by query or category, with pagination for inventory browsing.
Products with stock and prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| query | No | Search text | |
| category | No | Category id | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only that stock and prices are included, but says nothing about pagination, cache behavior, rate limits, or the shape of returned data. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds little behavioral context beyond them.
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 a single short sentence with no filler and is front-loaded, so it is concise. However, the brevity omits a verb and provides no structural cues for selecting or filtering, making it concise to the point of under-specification.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain pagination, filtering behavior, or what fields are returned. For a five-parameter list tool, that leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters (page, per_page, query, category, fresh), so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description adds no additional syntax, defaults, or filtering details, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 text names the resource and says it includes stock and prices, but supplies no verb (list, search, retrieve). An agent cannot tell whether this returns a collection, a single product, or filtered search results, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as product_stock_history or product_categories.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is the product-listing tool from the name and sibling set alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.