aukro-mcp

List & Inspect Seller Offer Templates / Drafts

aukro_offer_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List saved seller offer templates or inspect a specific template by ID for authenticated Aukro.cz seller workflows.

Instructions

List your saved seller offer templates (action: 'LIST') or inspect a specific template by templateId (action: 'GET'). Requires authentication.

Tool call template

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": "aukro_offer_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	0-indexed page number
`action`	No	Template operation	LIST
`pageSize`	No	Templates per page
`templateId`	No	Template ID (required when `action: 'GET'`)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authentication prerequisite, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior, error cases, or what a template contains.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One compact sentence front-loads the two operations and the auth requirement with no redundant wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list/get tool with four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action semantics and auth requirement. It could mention pagination or return shape, but those are minor given the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema's action description is only 'Template operation'; the description clarifies that LIST lists and GET inspects by templateId. It reinforces the templateId condition, adding semantic mapping beyond the enum labels.

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?

States specific verbs (list, inspect) and the resource (seller offer templates), and maps each action value to its operation. The distinction from siblings like aukro_manage_offer is implicit in the resource but not explicitly called out.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains how to choose between LIST and GET and notes that authentication is required. It does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as aukro_manage_offer or aukro_my_sales, so guidance stops short of full alternatives.

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