avito_get_item_detailsRetrieve full details for an Avito listing by URL or item ID, including title, price, description, seller rating and reviews, parameters, delivery status, and messaging availability.
Get full details of an Avito listing: title, price, description, seller rating/reviews, parameters, delivery status and messaging capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full URL of the listing or item ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned data (title, price, seller rating, delivery status, messaging capability), which implies a read operation, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior when a listing is unavailable.
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. Every clause contributes either the action or the set of returned fields.
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 with no output schema, the description does the useful work of enumerating the returned fields and signaling messaging capability. It is nearly complete; only auth and failure-mode context is missing, which is minor here.
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 100%, and the single 'url' parameter is fully documented as accepting a full URL or an item ID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('full details of an Avito listing') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it is a single-listing fetch. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling avito_search, which also returns listing data, so it misses the top band.
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 only implied: an agent would infer it calls this when it has a listing URL or ID and needs full details. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over avito_search or of any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.