Retrieve the status and text of a Mercado Libre question by ID, excluding buyer contact details, to review and respond without exposing private information.
Consulta el estado y texto de una pregunta, sin datos de contacto del comprador.
| 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: buyer contact data is excluded from the response, which tells the agent not to expect or promise that information. It stops short of describing behavior on a missing/invalid id or whether answers are included.
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 scope caveat is appended where it belongs. It is arguably too short for the tool's complexity, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description could have said what "estado" values exist or whether the response includes the seller's answer. The privacy note partially compensates, leaving it minimally viable rather than complete.
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% and the single parameter question_id has no description in the schema, so the description should compensate; it does not mention the parameter at all. The name is self-explanatory and the tool takes only one required argument, which limits the practical cost of the 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?
Uses a specific verb ("Consulta") plus the resource ("pregunta") and names the returned fields (estado, texto), so the agent knows this is a single-question lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like meli_unanswered_questions or meli_question_context, but the singular "detail" framing is fairly legible.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named. The agent must infer that this fetches one question by id rather than listing, answering, or classifying questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.