Retrieve human-readable exclusion settings for a specific eBay fulfillment policy by providing its policy ID. Understand excluded regions and shipping services at a glance.
特定ポリシーの除外設定を人間が読める形で取得
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policyId | Yes | フルフィルメントポリシーID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. '取得' conveys a read operation and '人間が読める形' discloses the output style, but it does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect-free behavior, error conditions, or what happens when the policy has no exclusions.
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 one short sentence with no filler. It leads with the resource/action and appends the useful output-format qualifier, so every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the target, the input, and the output form. It could add a note about return structure or empty results, but the low complexity and fully documented parameter keep the gap small.
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% and the only parameter, policyId, is already described as the fulfillment policy ID. The description adds little semantic value beyond tying it to a 'specific policy,' so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('取得' retrieve) on a specific resource ('特定ポリシーの除外設定' exclusion settings for a specific policy). It also notes the output is human-readable, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_exclusions or delete_policy that perform mutations.
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 phrase '特定ポリシーの' implies this is for retrieving exclusions for a single policy identified by policyId. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as bulk_update_exclusions or list_policies, and it gives no exclusions or alternative names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.