Find fresh commercial products from the web matching a store's niche to stock its storefront. Specify store ID, optional theme, and item count.
Scout fresh commercial products from the web tailored to store niche. Consumes 1 Auto-Credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of items to scout (1-8) | |
| store_id | Yes | Target store ID | |
| theme_or_query | No | Optional theme or category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call 'Consumes 1 Auto-Credit', which is important for cost-aware agents, but it omits permissions, failure behavior, whether scouted items are automatically added to the store, and other side effects.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the cost. There is no filler, and the agent can extract the essential purpose immediately.
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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but not empty: it states the purpose and the credit cost. It still leaves important gaps, including return behavior and whether scouting affects store inventory.
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%, and the schema documents all three parameters, so the description is not required to compensate. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Scout') and resource ('fresh commercial products from the web tailored to store niche'), so an agent can tell it is a product-sourcing tool rather than an inventory mutation tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as add_store_item or run_inventory_sweep, which limits it to a 4.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The only clue is the implied context of needing fresh products for a store niche.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.