Clone an existing eBay fulfillment policy to create a new one, while optionally adding or removing excluded regions in the same operation.
既存ポリシーを複製して新規ポリシーを作成（除外国の追加・削除も同時可）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | Yes | 新規ポリシーの名前（eBay内で一意） | |
| addExclusions | No | 複製時に追加する除外項目の表示名配列 | |
| setExclusions | No | 除外リストを丸ごと置き換える表示名配列（指定時はadd/removeを無視） | |
| sourcePolicyId | Yes | 複製元のフルフィルメントポリシーID | |
| removeExclusions | No | 複製時に解除する除外項目の表示名配列 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (clone) and the optional exclusion modifications, but does not explain the interaction between add/remove/set parameters, nor any side effects (e.g., whether the source is modified, or what the tool returns). It adds basic context but leaves significant behavioral details uncovered.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose first and adds a secondary capability. There is no redundant information or filler. It is appropriately sized and efficient.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain the combined behavior of the exclusion parameters (e.g., whether the clone inherits the source's exclusions, or how add/remove interact). It also does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., new policy ID) or any error conditions. Given the complexity, this is a significant gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds a slight hint that exclusion modifications can be done simultaneously, but it does not explain the precedence of setExclusions over add/remove (which is in the schema). Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description adds minimal additional meaning, matching the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states a specific action: cloning an existing policy to create a new one, and adds that it can also add/remove exclusions. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_exclusions or delete_policy, which operate on existing policies. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies the tool is for creating a new policy based on an existing one, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like update_exclusions, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions for use. The context is clear enough to infer, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.