Load pricing data from a local CSV or JSON file and normalize rows for Alibaba seller listing workflows, restricted to the server's allowed directories.
Read prices from a local CSV or JSON file into normalized rows.
The path is confined to the server's allowed directories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| rows | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| error_type | No |
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=false, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds that the path is confined to the server's allowed directories and that input is normalized into rows, but says nothing about malformed files, missing files, encoding, or size limits.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and supported formats, with the constraint appended. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and annotations cover the read-only nature. Combined with the format and path-scope statements, the definition is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only error/failure behavior is unaddressed.
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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It adds one meaningful constraint (the path must fall inside the server's allowed directories) but does not clarify whether the path is absolute or relative, or how the CSV/JSON format is detected.
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?
Specific verb (read) plus resource (prices) with the accepted inputs (CSV or JSON) and the output shape (normalized rows) all stated. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as read_local_media, which reads media rather than price files.
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?
The description implies when it applies (you have a local price file) but never states when to prefer it, any prerequisites, or what alternatives exist if the data lives elsewhere. No exclusions or routing guidance are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.