Retrieve product sets from a specified product catalog. Use catalog ID to filter results, with optional fields and pagination.
List product sets within a catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Pagination cursor for next page | |
| limit | No | Number of results to return | |
| fields | No | Comma-separated fields to return | |
| catalog_id | Yes | Product catalog ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose pagination behavior (despite 'after' and 'limit' parameters), authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. This lack of context is a gap for a tool with pagination parameters.
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 a single concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is not verbose, and while it could include more detail, it earns its place without wasted words.
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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, pagination, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response looks like, how pagination works, or how to use the 'fields' parameter effectively. More context is needed.
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%, with meaningful descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'product sets' with the scope 'within a catalog'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_products or get_product_set.
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 like get_product_set or list_products. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.