Search makeup products by brand, product type, category, or tags to find matching items for agent workflows.
Search makeup products by brand, type, category, or tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | No | Brand name (e.g. maybelline, covergirl, nyx) | |
| product_tags | No | Tags (e.g. vegan, organic, gluten_free) | |
| product_type | No | Product type (e.g. lipstick, foundation, mascara) | |
| product_category | No | Category (e.g. powder, cream, liquid) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no result format, pagination, or empty-result behavior—so it earns the baseline rather than more.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource and filter dimensions front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though the space saved could have carried the missing usage guidance.
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?
With four optional parameters, no output schema and no required fields, the description leaves open whether a parameterless call returns everything and what a result looks like. Adequate for a simple read-only search but not fully complete.
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 100% and each parameter carries its own example, so the description's field list merely restates the schema. It adds nothing on matching semantics (exact vs substring, case handling, multi-tag syntax).
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?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('makeup products') and enumerates the four filter dimensions. No sibling tool operates in the makeup domain, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, but the description does not need to differentiate either.
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?
Usage is implied by 'search' plus the filter list, but the description never says when to use this versus a full listing, whether filters are combinable (AND vs OR), or what happens when no parameters are supplied despite all four being optional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.