FeedDoctor MCP

List Disapprovals & Item Issues with Diagnostics

list_disapprovals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists disapproved, demoted, or warning-flagged products across Google and Microsoft Merchant Center; explains each issue code with cause, attribute, offending value, fix steps, and help link.

Instructions

Lists disapproved, demoted, or warning-flagged products across Google Merchant Center and Microsoft Merchant Center, mapping every issue code to plain-English cause, affected attribute, offending value, fix steps, and official help page link.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_disapprovals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of affected product records to return.
`platform`	No	Platform filter: "google", "microsoft", or "both".	both
`severity`	No	Filter by issue severity.	all
`attribute`	No	Optional filter by affected feed attribute (e.g., "price", "gtin", "image_link").
`issueCode`	No	Optional filter for a specific issue code (e.g., "price_mismatch", "invalid_gtin").
`credentials`	No	Optional per-call credential overrides. If omitted, credentials are resolved from the HTTP Authorization Bearer token / headers or self-host environment variables.
`googleAccountId`	No
`microsoftMerchantId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses that each issue code is expanded into cause, offending value, fix steps, and a help link, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, truncation at the limit, or how credential overrides interact with defaults.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the resource class comes first, then the diagnostic payload. The long enumeration of output fields is dense but each clause carries information, so there is no meaningful waste.

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?

With 8 parameters, a nested credentials object, and no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload in detail. Remaining gaps are pagination/limit semantics and multi-account resolution, though the schema covers credentials at a reasonable level.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning; it only implies platform scope via 'across Google Merchant Center and Microsoft Merchant Center'. With schema description coverage at 75% and both enums documented inline, the schema does the heavy lifting and the 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 ('Lists disapproved, demoted, or warning-flagged products') and defines scope as spanning Google and Microsoft Merchant Center. It also names the output payload (issue code mapped to cause, attribute, offending value, fix steps, help link). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like diagnose_product or fix_plan, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the aggregated triage/reporting call, but the description never says when to pick it over diagnose_product (single-product drill-down) or feed_health_summary (aggregate health). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

Deploy Server