Retrieve mappings between your monitored products and their competitor monitor IDs, optionally filtered by one self-owned monitor ID, to see which competitors each product tracks.
查看自己的商品与竞品的映射关系（自营监控 ID → 竞品监控 ID 列表）。
用户可能的问法：
"我的商品都对标了哪些竞品"
"看看 iPhone 那个挂了多少竞品"
"竞品映射表"
可选参数：
self_owned_monitor_id: 只查看指定自营商品；留空返回全部
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| self_owned_monitor_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word '查看' implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical clarifies the return shape. However, it does not disclose permissions, pagination behavior, or whether the result is scoped to the caller's account, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by example phrasings and a parameter note. The example questions are useful for intent matching but add some length; overall the structure is efficient and each section serves a purpose.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on purpose and the single optional parameter. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation from map_competitors, but for a one-parameter read tool this is largely 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that self_owned_monitor_id restricts results to a specific self-owned product and that leaving it blank returns all mappings, which adds real meaning beyond the bare integer/null 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the mapping from a self-owned monitor ID to a list of competitor monitor IDs. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's output shape. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool map_competitors, which likely creates or edits these mappings, so the agent must infer the read-only nature from the word '查看'.
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 three example user phrasings that clearly indicate when this tool applies, which is strong intent-matching guidance. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, such as when the user wants to create a mapping instead of view one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.