Asin MCP Server

Check the price now

check_product

Trigger an immediate price check (1 credit, max once per 5 minutes) for a tracked product; runs in the background unless wait=true is set. Paused products must be resumed first.

Instructions

Check the price now. Asks for a check right away (1 credit), at most once per 5 minutes; earlier calls return the product unchanged. A paused product has to be resumed first. The check runs in the background; with wait=true the answer waits for it. Read last_e…

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	product_id returned when the product was added
`wait`	No	Answer once the check is done (up to 45 seconds) Default: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the credit cost, the 5-minute rate limit with its no-op behavior, the paused-product prerequisite, the background/asynchronous execution model, and the wait=true blocking behavior. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before spending credits on a state-changing external call.

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?

The front-loaded imperative plus cost and throttle in the first two clauses is well ordered, and every clause carries information. It is dense but readable, though the trailing "Read last_e…" fragment is cut off and adds no value as presented.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers cost, throttling, prerequisites, async behavior and the wait escape hatch, which is essentially everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is guidance on interpreting a throttled/no-op response, which is partially addressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both id and wait are already documented, and the description largely restates wait's blocking behavior rather than adding syntax or edge cases. The one genuinely additive detail is that a stale (throttled) call returns the product unchanged, which is return-value semantics rather than parameter guidance.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ("check the price" / product) and states the immediate, on-demand nature of the operation, which distinguishes it from passive readers like get_product or get_offers. It stops short of naming any sibling as the alternative, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete conditions: a 1-credit cost, a once-per-5-minutes throttle where earlier calls are no-ops, and the prerequisite that a paused product must be resumed first. What is missing is any routing guidance toward get_product (read current price) versus this tool (force a fresh check), or advice on when not to spend a credit.

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

Deploy Server