Search items on Xianyu (Goofish) marketplace via browser automation to avoid anti-bot detection; supports multi-page scraping.
搜索闲鱼商品（浏览器路径，抗风控；--pages 跨页抓取）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| pages | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Input schema / properties / pagesAdded value: +{
+ "default": 1,
+ "title": "Pages",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"search_itemsOutput"New value: +"search_itemsDictOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait — that it goes through a browser path resistant to anti-bot/risk control — and hints at multi-page crawling, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or request cost for what is presumably a scraping operation.
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 a tight parenthetical; nothing is redundant. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but it wastes no words.
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 explained, and that covers part of the gap. Still, for a scraping-based search tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the absence of auth/cost/pagination context leaves it only minimally adequate.
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 explain the three parameters, but it only clarifies one: --pages is described as cross-page crawling. The required query and the limit parameter (default 20) are left entirely undefined, so an agent cannot tell whether limit caps results per page or overall.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource (搜索闲鱼商品 / search Xianyu items), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling item_list or the item_get/item_view tools, leaving ambiguity about which search/list variant to pick.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the closest sibling (item_list) is never mentioned or contrasted. The only contextual hint is the parenthetical about a browser path and anti-risk-control, which is a mechanism note rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.