Switch to a specific Ozon seller cabinet to make subsequent API calls use its credentials. Select by name to route requests to the correct account.
Switch the active cabinet. Subsequent API calls use its credentials.
Args: name: the cabinet to activate (see ozon_list_cabinets).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it affects subsequent calls and uses credentials, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the 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 two sentences plus a parameter note, with the core action front-loaded. No redundant words or filler. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema present), the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward switch action and are implied by the reference to list_cabinets.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It states that 'name' is 'the cabinet to activate' and points to ozon_list_cabinets for available options, adding meaning beyond the bare schema field. It could offer more format details, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb 'Switch' with a clear resource 'active cabinet' and explicitly states the consequence: 'Subsequent API calls use its credentials.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list/add/remove cabinets, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 gives clear context that this tool changes the active cabinet for subsequent calls, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the parameter reference to list_cabinets. There are no exclusions or alternate tools named, but the purpose is self-evident enough for a simple state-switching tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.