Retrieve store performance reports filtered by product to analyze sales and inventory data.
Get the report by product
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "GetStoreReportByProduct"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description gives no behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations to compensate, the agent has no insight into the tool's behavior.
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 concise but lacks substance. Front-loading is not an issue, but the content is too minimal to be helpful; it is under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 complex domain with many sibling tools, the lack of output schema, and the opaque input body, the description is completely inadequate. It does not equip an agent to understand what the tool does, what it returns, or how to invoke 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?
The single parameter 'body' is described only as 'Request body' with no further detail. Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning about required fields, format, or constraints, which is insufficient for an agent to construct valid input.
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?
Description states 'Get the report by product' which indicates a verb-resource pairing. However, it does not distinguish this tool from numerous sibling report tools like GetStoreReportByCategory or GetStoreReportByChannel, making its specific purpose vague.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, common use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.