Place a product into a Shufersal or Tiv Taam cart using store and product IDs; set quantity as needed.
Add a specific product to a store's cart.
Args:
store_id: "shufersal" or "tivtaam".
product_id: The product ID from search results.
quantity: Number of units (default: 1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quantity | No | ||
| store_id | Yes | ||
| product_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about the auth/session requirement implied by the login_* siblings, whether adding an existing item merges or duplicates, or whether the operation is idempotent.
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?
Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then gives per-argument notes compactly. No filler; the Args block is functional rather than padded, though slightly more routing context could have been added without bloat.
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 not be described. Still, for a cart-mutating tool surrounded by login and verify_cart siblings, the description omits session/auth expectations and cart-merge behavior, leaving notable gaps for an agent to call it reliably.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it supplies concrete store_id values ('shufersal' or 'tivtaam'), identifies product_id's source (search results), and states quantity's default. Only the boundaries of quantity (min/max, integers only) are left unstated.
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 ('Add a specific product to a store's cart'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling add_recipe_to_cart or add_to_cart-adjacent tools, leaving the agent to infer which add-tool applies.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The note that product_id comes 'from search results' faintly implies a search-then-add flow, but there is no statement about prerequisites (e.g. login) or when to prefer this over add_recipe_to_cart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.