Gathers a buyer question with current item data and local policies so sellers can review context before replying; it does not draft or send responses.
Reúne pregunta, datos actuales del ítem y políticas locales; no redacta ni envía respuestas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question_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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the scope of the read (question + live item data + local policies) and confirming it has no write side effects on the answer side, but says nothing about auth scopes, latency, or failure modes for the open-world lookup.
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 two tight clauses; the positive scope comes first and the negative boundary second. Zero filler.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the three data sources the bundle contains. It stops short of describing the result structure (e.g., what form the item data and local policies take), which matters more without an output schema.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It reveals non-obvious semantics — that a single question_id implicitly drives retrieval of the associated item data and policies — but gives no format, ID source, or validity constraints for the integer question_id.
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 aggregation action ("Reúne pregunta, datos actuales del ítem y políticas locales") rather than restating the name, so an agent understands it builds a context bundle. It partially differentiates from meli_answer_question via the negative clause, but never distinguishes itself from the very similar meli_question_detail sibling.
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 exclusion "no redacta ni envía respuestas" implicitly routes answering to meli_answer_question, which is useful. However, there is no positive "use this when..." trigger and no guidance on when to prefer this over meli_question_detail or when a context bundle is warranted versus a plain question lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.