Fetch full details for a single list.am ad using its ID or URL, including price, attributes, description, seller, images, and dates.
Get full details of one listing: price, attributes, description, seller, images, dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes | Listing ID (e.g. '24201365') or full list.am item URL. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 read-only, external-fetch nature is covered. The description adds the list of returned facets, which is useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for a missing listing.
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?
One tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the payload. No filler, no redundancy with the schema.
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 carrying return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey purpose and scope, which it does. The only omission is any routing guidance versus the many sibling listing tools.
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% and the single 'item' parameter is already documented as a listing ID or full URL. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('one listing') and enumerates the returned content (price, attributes, description, seller, images, dates). The singular 'one listing' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_listings, but the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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 by 'one listing' – an agent can infer this is for fetching a single known listing rather than searching. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to siblings like search_listings or get_listings, so guidance is thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.