Preview proposed Mercado Libre listing changes by comparing current and proposed values without writing updates or validating admissibility. Review edits before applying them.
Lee la publicación y presenta los valores actuales y propuestos sin escribir ni validar su admisibilidad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | ||
| item_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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that no admissibility validation occurs and that both current and proposed values are shown, but it says nothing about result shape, partial failures, or what happens with invalid change keys.
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; the non-writing, non-validating scope is stated immediately and every clause carries information.
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?
With a free-form nested 'changes' object at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the shape of the change payload and what the preview returns. Neither is addressed, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from the definition alone.
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% and the 'changes' parameter is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties=true, meaning the agent has no documentation of its expected structure anywhere. The description implies 'changes' holds the proposed values but adds no field-level syntax or format guidance, leaving a serious gap.
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 states a clear verb and resource: it reads the listing and presents current versus proposed values. This distinguishes it from meli_update_item, which actually writes changes. It does not explicitly name that sibling, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'without writing nor validating admissibility' signals this is a pre-write inspection step. It does not explicitly say 'call before meli_update_item' or name any alternative, so the agent must infer when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.