pdd_promotion_listFetch complete product promotion lists and summaries for a specified mall ID on a chosen date, with pagination, deduplication, and store identity verification.
按明确CDP端点读取商品推广scenesMode=1全量列表及汇总，分页去重与店铺身份核验；配合pdd_promotion_detail逐单元读取小时和创意昨日数据。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | yesterday | |
| shop | No | 店铺名（多店铺时指定，对应 config/shops.json 的键名；省略=默认店铺） | |
| cdpUrl | No | ||
| expectedMallId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context: pagination, deduplication, and shop identity verification. It does not contradict the annotations and discloses more than the structured metadata alone.
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 dense sentence with no filler, and the primary action and resource are front-loaded. Some technical terms like 'scenesMode=1' and 'CDP端点' are compressed without elaboration, slightly reducing clarity.
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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description should explain more about return values and how the four parameters affect the call. It covers purpose and key behavior, but leaves gaps around result shape, pagination details, and route selection among promotion siblings.
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 only 25% (only 'shop' has a schema description), yet the description does not explain expectedMallId, cdpUrl, or date value semantics. It refers to a 'CDP endpoint' and '店铺身份核验' but does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 ('读取') and names the exact resource: the full sceneMode=1 product promotion list with summary. It also differentiates itself by pointing to pdd_promotion_detail for per-unit hourly/creative data, so an agent can distinguish it from related siblings.
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?
It explicitly states the complementary relationship with pdd_promotion_detail ('配合pdd_promotion_detail逐单元读取...'), which gives clear context on when this list tool is the right first step. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives like pdd_promotion_data or pdd_promotion_operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.