Answer natural-language questions about product prices by querying Tally data. Filter by category, price range, search, or sort to narrow results.
Answer natural-language questions about products/prices by querying Tally data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| token | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| sortBy | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| maxPages | No | ||
| maxPrice | No | ||
| minPrice | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| accountId | No | ||
| locationId | No | ||
| maxRecords | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool queries Tally data to answer questions; it omits behavioral details such as whether the tool performs reads only, how it handles pagination or limits, whether authentication is required, and what the response format looks like.
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 single sentence is grammatically tight and has no filler, but it is underspecified for a tool with 13 parameters. The one sentence does not earn its place by conveying enough information; it reads as a terse summary rather than a complete tool definition.
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?
For a tool with 13 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how the natural-language question is interpreted, what filtering parameters do, what the response contains, or how it relates to the sibling list and token tools.
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% and there are 13 parameters, including meaningful filters like limit, minPrice, maxPrice, sortBy, and category. The description provides no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 ('Answer') and a clear resource ('natural-language questions about products/prices'), and identifies the data source ('Tally data'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings such as list_products, so it stops short of a 5.
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 phrase 'natural-language questions' implies when the tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over list_products, list_categories, or set_tally_token, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.