Retrieve owner reviews for a Newegg product by item number or URL, including ratings, pros, cons, author, date and helpful votes, with pagination up to 500 records.
Owner reviews for a Newegg product: rating, title, text, pros, cons, author, date and helpful votes. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Item number or URL. e.g. N82E16820147903 | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 500) | |
| start_page | No | Starting page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully lists the returned fields and states a cost of '1 point per returned record', which is real behavioral context, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works beyond the schema, and any rate limits or auth requirements.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by a useful cost note. No wasted words.
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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is slightly incomplete on usage guidance and explicit read-only behavior, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.
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%, so the schema already documents product, max_items, and start_page adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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?
States the resource precisely: owner reviews for a Newegg product, plus the data fields returned. Clearly distinguishable from product-detail siblings like run_newegg_products, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools mentioned. The agent must infer from the name alone that this tool is for Newegg product reviews rather than, say, run_ebay_product_reviews or run_newegg_products_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.