Extracts Shopee product IDs from a product URL, turning links into the IDs needed for affiliate link generation and report lookups.
Extrai IDs de URL Shopee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| mode | Yes | ||
| synthetic | Yes | ||
| account_reference | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what happens with a malformed or non-Shopee URL, and no mention of failure behavior for a pure parsing function.
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?
One short sentence with no waste and the key concept front-loaded, so it is structurally fine. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — the same length could have carried one clarifying clause at no structural cost.
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 values need not be explained, and this is a simple one-parameter read tool. Even so, the definition omits URL-format expectations and error behavior, leaving the agent without what it needs to call the tool reliably on non-trivial inputs.
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 carry the burden for the single 'url' parameter, yet it only implies 'a Shopee URL'. It does not describe accepted URL shapes (short links, mobile links, query-string variants), which is the exact information needed to supply a valid value.
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 verb ('Extrai') and a resource ('URL Shopee'), but 'IDs' is left ambiguous — the schema and siblings (e.g., resolve_product_url) give no hint as to whether this returns item, shop, or affiliate IDs. It is identifiable but not sharply differentiated from resolve_product_url.
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 'when to use this' statement and no reference to any alternative, despite a closely related sibling (resolve_product_url) that an agent could easily confuse it with. The agent must guess the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.