List available products and plans from the catalog, with filters for name, slug, category, visibility, sorting, and pagination.
List available products/plans in the catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by product name | |
| page | No | Page number | |
| slug | No | Filter by slug | |
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| hidden | No | Filter hidden products | |
| include | No | Relations (category, plans) | |
| per_page | No | Items per page | |
| category_id | No | Filter by category ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says almost nothing. The word 'available' even risks misleading, since the schema exposes a 'hidden' filter implying non-available products are listable, and nothing is said about pagination behavior or what the listing contains.
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 no filler or redundancy. It is economical but arguably under-sized for an eight-parameter list tool.
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 an eight-parameter listing endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: no pagination semantics, no return-shape hint, no note on the hidden/available distinction. The schema covers parameter meaning, but everything else an agent needs is absent.
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 all eight filters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing about how filters combine, what 'include' relations return, or how sorting/paging interact.
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 available products/plans') and scopes it to 'the catalog', which implicitly separates it from siblings like paymenter_list_services or paymenter_list_categories. However it makes no explicit contrast with any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative tool. An agent gets no signal about when this is preferable to paymenter_search or paymenter_list_services.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.