Retrieve views, favourites, favouriter details, and daily bump statistics for a Vinted listing to track interest and promotion results.
Views and favourites of one of your listings, who favourited it, and daily bump stats when bumped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the returned data categories and an implicit ownership constraint ('your listings'). It does not cover authentication requirements explicitly, time ranges for the stats, pagination, or error behavior.
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 that wastes little space. Slightly awkward phrasing around 'daily bump stats when bumped' but overall tight.
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 low-complexity analytics tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the main return categories. However, the required parameter is undocumented everywhere and the scope of the stats (time window, ownership enforcement) is left unstated.
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% for the single required 'item' parameter. The phrase 'one of your listings' hints that it must be an owned listing, but the description never states the identifier format (ID vs slug) or any constraints, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 names the resource (one of your listings) and the specific data returned: view counts, favourites, who favourited, and daily bump stats. It is distinguishable from list_item_likers, though the overlap with that sibling is not acknowledged.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_item_likers, get_item, or my_items. The only implied context is that it applies to the caller's own listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.