List return and claim records from a Trendyol seller account, with optional limit and since filters, to monitor refunds and prioritize follow-up actions. Read-only.
İade ve talep kayıtlarını listeler. Salt okunur.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No |
| 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?
'Salt okunur' (read-only) merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding context. With annotations already covering readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and destructive hints, the description contributes nothing new about pagination, default result size, or rate 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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though brevity here reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.
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 no explanation, but the definition omits any guidance on the undocumented 'since'/'limit' filters and gives no usage context. For a list tool with unlabeled parameters, this is incomplete.
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?
Both parameters (limit with default 50, since) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention either one. The meaning of 'since' (date format? timestamp? cursor?) is left entirely undocumented.
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 and resource: 'listeler' (lists) applied to 'İade ve talep kayıtları' (returns and request records). This distinguishes it reasonably from the sibling list_orders, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention any alternative among the many listing siblings (list_orders, stock_alerts, return_clusters). An agent must infer selection entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.