Retrieve products in a Migros category by category ID, with pagination, sorting, limits, and direction. Use category IDs from autocomplete, breadcrumbs, or store maps.
Products in a category (ids come from autocomplete, product breadcrumbs or store_map).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| direction | No | asc | |
| category_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only listing operation, nor does it disclose pagination, sorting behavior, limits, or error conditions.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the category context is front-loaded. It is concise, though the parenthetical source hint is the only extra detail provided.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details are less critical, but the tool still has five parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations. The description is too sparse to fully explain pagination, sorting, and listing behavior.
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 for five undocumented parameters. It only clarifies where category_id values come from and says nothing about page, sort, limit, or direction.
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 identifies the resource as products within a category, which distinguishes it from general product search and from brand/label product tools. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list', but the intent is still easy to infer.
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?
It implies when to use the tool by saying products are retrieved by category, and it helpfully explains where category IDs come from. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with search_products, brand_products, label_products, or product_filters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.