update_seo_urlAssign SEO URL slugs to OpenCart products or categories by creating or updating mappings from query values like product_id=123.
Update or create an SEO URL mapping. Query is e.g. 'product_id=123' or 'category_id=45'. Keyword is the URL slug (e.g. 'bpc-157-5mg').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| keyword | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does 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 upsert semantics ('Update or create'), which tells the agent this may write a new mapping. However it stays silent on side effects such as overwriting an existing slug, uniqueness constraints, or required permissions.
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 action, and each example earns its place by clarifying an otherwise undocumented parameter.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should say more about what happens to existing URL mappings, but the core input semantics are adequately covered.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'query' is illustrated with 'product_id=123' or 'category_id=45' and 'keyword' is defined as the URL slug with an example. This gives real meaning to both required parameters, though it doesn't enumerate all accepted query forms.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update or create an SEO URL mapping'), and the upsert nature is clear. It does not name the read counterpart get_seo_urls to explicitly separate itself from siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_seo_urls or when an update is preferred over a create. Usage is only implied by the verb, with no conditions or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.