Resolve Vinted brand IDs for publish_item by keyword and optional category. Find the correct brand_id before creating a listing to avoid invalid brand references.
Brand ids for listing (publish_item brand_id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | ||
| category_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say the lookup is read-only, whether results are ranked or paginated, or how many brands come back. Only the bare purpose is conveyed.
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?
It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — a single fragment that omits the verb and all operational detail. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially nothing to load.
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-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain the keyword/category_id interaction and the shape of returned brand IDs. Almost all of that is 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% and neither parameter is explained in the description. The optional 'category_id' filter in particular is left completely undefined, so an agent cannot tell how to scope the search.
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 fragment 'Brand ids for listing' conveys the resource (brand IDs) and hints at the downstream use, but there is no explicit verb and no clear statement that the tool searches brands by keyword. It is interpretable but requires inference to know exactly what the tool does.
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 parenthetical '(publish_item brand_id)' implies the result feeds an item-publishing flow, but no sibling alternative is named and no when/when-not guidance is given. With ~25 sibling tools, no routing help is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.