Retrieve shipping services for an eBay fulfillment policy, filter by policy name or ID, and specify marketplace.
ポリシーのshippingServices一覧を取得
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | ポリシー名の部分一致フィルタ | |
| policyId | No | フルフィルメントポリシーID | |
| marketplaceId | No | eBay marketplace ID (default: EBAY_US) |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation (though implied), nor does it disclose any rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or pagination behavior. For a simple list tool, this is a minimal gap, but it is still lacking.
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 in Japanese that conveys the purpose without extra words. It is appropriately front-loaded and not verbose. It earns a high score for conciseness, though it sacrifices some explanatory depth.
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 is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose but does not explain the return format, pagination, or any edge cases. Given that the schema already documents parameters, this is adequate but not rich. A slightly more complete description would mention the response structure or the scope of the list.
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 each parameter (filter, policyId, marketplaceId) having its own description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get the list of shipping services for policies'. It is distinct from siblings like list_policies (which lists policies themselves) and add_shipping_service (which adds). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling by name, so it is clear but not maximally specific.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it is a read-only listing operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.