list_product_feedsRetrieve product feeds with their countries, currencies, product counts, and campaign counts. Supports pagination to browse large feed lists.
List product feeds with countries, currencies, product and campaign counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Cursor: return results after this id (use last_id from the previous page). | |
| limit | No | Page size (default 20, max 500). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing includes aggregate counts, which is behavioral context, but omits pagination behavior and any rate or scope limitations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned but not pagination or result limits. It is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about cursor behavior and the shape of the counts.
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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 ('List product feeds') and enumerates included fields (countries, currencies, product/campaign counts). It is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_campaigns or list_ads beyond the resource name.
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 tool versus alternatives or in what context it is appropriate. The description only states what it returns, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.