Fetch the promoted-post carousel for an Arabic tag, optionally filtered by city. Returns count and posts.
Fetch the promoted-post carousel for a tag. Required: tag. Optional: city. Returns {count, posts}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Arabic tag name for the promoted carousel, e.g. 'حراج الأجهزة'. | |
| city | No | Arabic region name to filter by. | |
| full | No | Return full Post objects instead of compact summaries. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / city / descriptionAdded value: +"Arabic region name to filter by."Input schema / properties / full / descriptionAdded value: +"Return full Post objects instead of compact summaries."Input schema / properties / tag / descriptionAdded value: +"Arabic tag name for the promoted carousel, e.g. 'حراج الأجهزة'."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape '{count, posts}', which is genuinely useful given no output schema. It says nothing about rate limits, auth, or pagination, so it is adequate but not rich.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. The 'Required/Optional' clause mildly duplicates the schema, which prevents a 5.
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?
With no output schema, describing the return payload is the right instinct and it is partially done. However, the description omits the third parameter 'full' and its effect on the return shape, which is the one piece of behavior an agent most needs for this fetch tool.
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%, so both the Arabic tag/region semantics and the 'full' flag are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description arguably goes backwards by implying the return is always '{count, posts}' when full=true yields full Post objects.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the promoted-post carousel for a tag.' That is concrete enough for an agent to know what comes back. It stops short of distinguishing itself from look-alike siblings such as fetch_feed or live_streams, which is the only thing keeping it from a 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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_feed or search. 'Required: tag. Optional: city.' only restates the schema's required/optional structure rather than giving selection guidance. An agent must infer the use case entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.