Find product IDs for invoices and quotations by searching or filtering the product list. Get exact product references to complete line items efficiently.
List products. Use to find product_id for invoice/quotation line items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| term | No | Search term filter | |
| page_size | No | Page size (default: 20, max: 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists products but does not mention pagination behavior, default sorting, or that it is a read-only operation. The schema conveys page/page_size but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the purpose. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.
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 a single sentence with zero redundancy. It front-loads the core action and immediately links to a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.
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 list operation with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose and points to the product_id use. Lacking behavioral details like pagination, filtering nuances, or return format, but given the simplicity and the fact that page/page_size are already in the schema, it is reasonably complete.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about how 'term' interacts with products or pagination behavior. No extra semantic value is provided over the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (list products) and the specific purpose (find product_id for invoice/quotation line items), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_product. The verb 'List' and resource 'products' are specific and the intended use case is explicit.
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 provides a clear use case ('Use to find product_id...') which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling get_product is indirectly differentiated because get_product retrieves a single product. Lacks a formal when/when-not statement but the context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.