MercadoLibre MCP Server

by dedero1985

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Answer Question

answer_question

Resolve pending customer questions on MercadoLibre listings by submitting the answer text for a given question ID, helping sellers provide prompt responses.

Instructions

Answer a pending question about an item.

Usage examples:

"Answer question 98765 with 'Yes, we have stock'"

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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "answer_question"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the action but does not disclose effects such as marking the question answered, notifying the buyer, or whether the action is reversible. No authentication or rate-limit context is provided.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short, front-loaded, and the usage example is useful and concrete. It is efficient, though slightly informal in structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema existsheb, and the schema documents parameters and defaults. However, the description lacks usage context, exclusions, and behavioral effect details. It is minimally viable but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description's example illustrates question_id and answer_text, but it adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Given the low schema-description-coverage signal, the description should have compensated more fully, including for account and site_id.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'Answer a pending question about an item.' It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_questions, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus list_questions or other alternatives. The usage example shows syntax but does not explain prerequisites, such as verifying the question is actually pending or whether the answer will be publicly posted.

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