Switch the active Wildberries cabinet to direct subsequent API calls to its credentials. Select a cabinet name to change which seller account the server uses.
Switch the active cabinet. Subsequent API calls use its credentials.
Args: name: the cabinet to activate (see wb_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 declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the behavioral consequence that subsequent calls use the new cabinet's credentials, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid cabinet name) or any other side effects. It provides moderate extra context beyond 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 extremely concise: two sentences and a parameter explanation. It front-loads the purpose and effect, with no fluff or repetition. Every sentence 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and the prerequisite for finding a valid name. It could mention behavior on invalid input, but that is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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% for the name parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'name' is the cabinet to activate and directs the user to wb_list_cabinets for valid values. This adds meaning and provides a reference for acquiring the parameter, going beyond the bare schema definition.
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 (switch) and the resource (active cabinet), and explains the effect (subsequent API calls use its credentials). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_list_cabinets or wb_add_cabinet, which have different verbs and purposes.
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 points to wb_list_cabinets as the source for valid cabinet names, implying you should list before switching. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative actions (add, remove, set_key), the context makes it clear this is for switching between existing cabinets. The guidance is present but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.