Etsy MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' specifically include (e.g., basic vs. extended fields). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific Etsy listing') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

For a read-only tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, error handling) and doesn't explain return values, which is a gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the format of 'listing_id' or provide examples for 'includes'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific Etsy listing'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_listing_images' or 'get_listing_inventory', which also retrieve listing-related data but with different scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_listing_images' (for images only) and 'get_listing_inventory' (for inventory only), the description lacks context on whether this tool should be used for comprehensive details or how it relates to other listing-focused tools.

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