Save an item's seller-defined minimum advertised price, max discount, and optional product data without modifying Mercado Libre listings.
Guarda para el vendedor un piso de precio público, descuento máximo y datos opcionales de producto; no modifica Mercado Libre.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| max_discount_pct | Yes | ||
| minimum_advertised_price | 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=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the genuinely useful fact that the write is local-only and has no remote effect on Mercado Libre, which is context not present in the annotations. However, it says nothing about whether an existing rule is overwritten (relevant given destructiveHint=true) or what permissions/state are needed, so it clears the lowered bar without being rich.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and the main payload fields, with the negative scope appended. No filler; the only shortfall is that brevity here is partly achieved by omitting needed detail.
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 mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and destructiveHint=true, the definition does not cover upsert/overwrite behavior, validation constraints on the price and discount strings, or what the caller gets back. The 'does not modify Mercado Libre' note helps, but key operational facts are missing.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description has to carry the load. It does name the semantics of three fields (price floor, max discount, optional product data covering cost/notes) but leaves item_id and the string-typed numeric formats unaddressed, so it partially compensates rather than fully.
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 verb and resource: saves a seller-side rule containing a public price floor, a max discount and optional product data. The clause 'no modifica Mercado Libre' usefully separates it from the item/promotion mutation siblings. It does not name a closest sibling (e.g. meli_save_business_policy), so it stops short of 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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as meli_active_rules_status or meli_save_business_policy. The only context is the negative scoping clause about not touching Mercado Libre, which is inferred rather than stated as a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.