Search Amazon products by keyword and retrieve item results for a chosen region, category, or result count. Use it to find products for browser automation and AI agent workflows.
Search for products on Amazon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | ||
| keywords | Yes | ||
| itemCount | No | ||
| access_key | No | ||
| secret_key | No | ||
| partner_tag | No | ||
| searchIndex | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not explain credential requirements, rate limits, result limits, or how regions affect results.
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 front-loaded and has no waste, but it is under-specified for a tool with seven parameters and authentication requirements. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than effective concision.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It omits authentication needs, regional behavior, item count semantics, search index usage, and expected output, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool reliably.
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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, including non-obvious fields such as access_key, secret_key, partner_tag, and searchIndex. The description does not explain any of these parameters or their expectations, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search for products on Amazon.' This is enough to distinguish it from a get-product tool like amazon_product, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as amazon_browse or amazon_variations, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus amazon_browse, amazon_product, or amazon_variations, nor any mention of prerequisites such as API credentials or regional constraints. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.