Compare a Mercado Libre item with its catalog product to check eligibility and attributes for human review, without inferring or inventing missing data.
Consulta ítem, elegibilidad y producto de catálogo para comparación humana; no asocia ni inventa atributos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| product_id | Yes |
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=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'no asocia ni inventa atributos' adds real behavioral context: the tool returns raw data without fabricating or linking attributes, which matters for an agent reasoning about result trustworthiness. It stops short of describing scope or result shape, so a 3 fits.
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 sentence that front-loads the resource list and appends the behavioral caveat, with no filler. Efficient, though its terseness trades off some clarity.
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 two-param, no-output-schema read tool the description is thin: it never explains what the two inputs identify or what 'comparison' entails. Annotations cover safety, but parameter meaning and expected result nature remain gaps.
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% for two required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only implicitly maps 'ítem' and 'producto de catálogo' to item_id and product_id without explaining format, source, or constraints, leaving the parameters effectively undocumented.
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 verb ('Consulta') and three resources (ítem, elegibilidad, producto de catálogo) and frames the goal as human comparison. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this combined lookup from siblings like meli_catalog_product or meli_catalog_eligibility, which appear to do overlapping sub-parts. Purpose is discernible but muddled by the sibling overlap.
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?
'para comparación humana' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs meli_catalog_product / meli_catalog_eligibility, no exclusions, and no prerequisites stated. The agent is left to infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.