Export all eBay shipping policy exclusion settings to a pivot-format Excel file. This creates a structured spreadsheet for reviewing or sharing excluded regions and services.
全ポリシーの除外設定をピボット形式のExcelに出力
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outputPath | No | 出力ファイルパス (default: ebay-policies.xlsx) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it overwrites an existing file, or any permission or side-effect requirements. For an export tool, this is a notable gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and output. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple export tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential what and output format. However, it lacks any mention of file handling behavior (e.g., overwrite vs. create new) or prerequisites (e.g., existing policies). Given the absence of annotations, this is a moderate gap but not critical for a straightforward export action.
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 the parameter outputPath is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.
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 the verb 'export', the resource 'all policies' exclusion settings', and the output format 'Excel pivot'. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_policy_exclusions (which likely returns data) and import_excel (which imports). The purpose is 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the export counterpart to import_excel, nor does it clarify when one would choose this over get_policy_exclusions or bulk_update_exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.