Lists every API endpoint in a chosen Ozon section, returning operation ID, method, path, safety, and summary so you can inspect available calls.
List all endpoints in one section.
Args: section: section name (see ozon_list_sections), e.g. "statistics". Returns JSON list of {operation_id, method, path, safety, summary}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON list with operation_id, method, path, safety, and summary, but it does not describe edge cases or pagination behavior; this is modest value beyond annotations.
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?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes value, and the pointer to ozon_list_sections plus the return shape list are useful without filler.
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-only lookup, the description covers the required parameter, how to obtain valid section names, and the output shape; an output schema also exists. It could be stronger by explicitly routing against search/describe siblings, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?
The single section parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining it is a section name, pointing to ozon_list_sections for valid values, and providing the concrete example 'statistics.' This gives an agent actionable parameter guidance without needing an enum.
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 leads with the specific behavior 'List all endpoints in one section,' naming the action and resource precisely. It also separates this from section-listing tools like ozon_list_sections by focusing on endpoints within one section.
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 description implies usage as a section-endpoint enumerator and tells the agent to refer to ozon_list_sections for valid section names, with the example 'statistics.' It does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives like ozon_search_methods or ozon_describe_method, so exclusion guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.