Retrieve the full catalog record for a single endpoint by operation ID: method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination, rate limit, params, and doc URL.
Return the full catalog record for one endpoint: method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination style, rate limit, params and doc URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the catalog record contains, including safety level, pagination style, and rate limit. No contradiction with 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?
A single sentence that starts with the action and object, then compactly lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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 one required parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is that it does not point the agent to a source for valid operation_id values, but this is a minor omission for such a simple metadata lookup tool.
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 the operation_id parameter. It only says 'one endpoint,' which loosely implies that operation_id selects an endpoint, but it does not explain the parameter's format, valid values, or that the ID comes from catalog tools like ozon_map or ozon_search_methods.
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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('the full catalog record for one endpoint'), then enumerates the record contents: method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination style, rate limit, params, and doc URL. This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_methods, map, and call_method.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus ozon_search_methods, ozon_map, ozon_call_method, or the describe_method equivalents for other markets. Usage is only implied by the word 'describe,' and there are no when-not-to-use or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.