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 the tool 'Get[s] inventory' but doesn't describe what 'inventory' includes (e.g., products, offerings, variations as noted), whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), any rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 action ('Get inventory') and resource ('for a listing'). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly listing inventory components). Every word earns its place, making it concise but not maximally informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'inventory' entails (beyond the parenthetical note), behavioral traits like pagination or errors, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'listing_id' documented as 'The listing ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric ID) or constraints (e.g., must be active). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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') and resource ('inventory for a listing'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_listing' (which likely returns listing metadata) or 'update_listing_inventory' (which modifies inventory). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_listings_by_shop' or 'search_listings', which might also return inventory-related data, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid listing_id), exclusions (e.g., not for draft listings), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_listing' (which might include inventory) or 'search_listings' (which might filter inventory). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage.

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