Jiji MCP

jiji_listing_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full public details and seller trust signals for a listing GUID returned by search. Does not expose seller phone numbers.

Instructions

Read full public details and seller trust signals for a listing GUID returned by search. Does not reveal seller phone numbers.

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": {
      "guid": "<guid>"
    },
    "name": "jiji_listing_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`guid`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that only *public* details and trust signals are returned, and explicitly states the phone-number privacy boundary, which an agent could otherwise assume was included.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no filler, and the positive scope (public details + trust signals) is front-loaded ahead of the privacy caveat. Nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary; the description instead spends its words on scope and the key excluded data point. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, though a hint about missing/invalid GUID behavior would complete it.

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 single guid parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does clarify the parameter's origin (a GUID returned by search), but adds nothing about the format constraint (alphanumeric, 8-64 chars) already encoded in the pattern.

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 ('Read full public details and seller trust signals for a listing GUID'), which is clearly distinct from jiji_search's discovery role. It names no sibling directly but the 'GUID returned by search' framing anchors it as the detail-fetch follow-up.

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?

Implies the workflow position (call after search, using the returned GUID) and carves out a scope exclusion ('does not reveal seller phone numbers'), which implicitly routes contact needs to jiji_seller_contact. No explicit 'do not use for X' statement, so not a 5.

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