Merchgraph (Kingdom Hearts)

Report correction

report_correction

Report catalog errors or missing product data by specifying the field, proposed value, and optional SKU and source URL; returns a receipt ID for tracking the correction.

Instructions

カタログの誤り・不足を報告する。受付IDを返す。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "field": "<field>",
      "proposed_value": "<proposed_value>"
    },
    "name": "report_correction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	補足（任意）
`field`	Yes	修正したい列名（例: msrp_jpy, name_en）
`sku_id`	No	対象SKU_ID（任意。新規商品の提案なら空でよい）
`source_url`	No	根拠となる一次情報URL（任意）
`proposed_value`	Yes	提案する値

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that a receipt ID is returned, but does not explain what happens after submission, whether the report is reviewed, whether it creates a pending change, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the tool's workflow complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema fully documents the parameters and the description notes the receipt-ID return value. However, for a report-submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves important workflow and post-submission behavior unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about field, sku_id, proposed_value, source_url, or note beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: reporting catalog errors or omissions. It is clearly different from siblings such as resolve_listing or explain_product, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus resolve_listing, resolve_listings_batch, or explain_product. It also omits prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context for submitting a correction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server