Retrieve members who favourited your Vinted listings or a specific item, including user IDs, logins, and timestamps, to identify interested buyers from recent like notifications.
Members who favourited your listings (optionally one item): item_id, user_id, login, when. Built from like notifications, so only recent likes appear.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add a meaningful caveat: results are built from like notifications, so only recent likes appear. It also lists returned fields, but does not cover permissions, pagination, sorting, or empty-result 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?
Two short sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose and the recency caveat are both front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields and an important data-source limitation. Remaining gaps around pagination, auth, and exact item identifier semantics are minor but present.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the single item parameter is optional and filters to one item, but does not specify the expected identifier format or whether it is an item ID, slug, or URL.
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 clearly states the resource and scope: members who favourited your listings, optionally limited to one item. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_favourites and get_user, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: use this to see who liked your listings, with an optional item filter. The recency limitation is stated, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_favourites or get_user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.