avito-mcp-ru

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

avito_describe_method

Read-only

Return the full catalog record for one Avito API endpoint, covering method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination style, rate limit, params and doc URL.

Instructions

Return the full catalog record for one endpoint: method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination style, rate limit, params and doc URL.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "avito_describe_method"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operation_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.3Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as non-destructive; the description adds context by specifying what the returned catalog record contains. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., whether an API key or prior setup is required).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and lists the return fields with zero filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a simple one-parameter tool, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description covers the core purpose well. The only real gap is the missing explanation of what operation_id represents or where it comes from.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It never explains operation_id: what format it takes, where the caller obtains it, or how it links to describe_method. The name is somewhat self-evident, but no concrete guidance is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description names the exact operation (return the full catalog record for one endpoint) and lists the fields returned. Combined with the verb 'describe_method', it is unambiguous and easily distinguished from call/search siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like avito_search_methods or avito_call_method. The description implies inspection rather than execution, but does not state it, and gives no hint that operation_id likely comes from a search/map tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.