Retrieve the first publicly accessible batch of a dealer page and summarize it; permission errors are reported explicitly.
Read the publicly accessible first batch of a dealer page; permission failures remain explicit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| schema_version | No | 1.0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral value by stating that only the publicly accessible first batch is returned and that permission failures surface explicitly as errors rather than being silently swallowed — a meaningful disclosure for a read against potentially restricted data.
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?
A single compact sentence with the read scope front-loaded and no filler. It is tight, though the telegraphic style ("first batch") buys brevity at the cost of clarity.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is material: the meaning of "first batch" and any pagination/continuation path, plus the semantics of brand_token. For a tool with essentially no schema documentation, the description leaves too much to inference.
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 0%: the single required parameter brand_token has only a regex pattern and no textual explanation, and the description never mentions it. The agent must guess that brand_token identifies the dealer/brand to summarize, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a verb ("Read") and a resource ("a dealer page", "first batch"), so the general intent is inferable. However, "first batch" is cryptic — it's unclear whether this is a summary, a pagination chunk, or a preview — and it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling dv_seller_summary or the dv_get_listing/dv_get_listings family.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as dv_seller_summary or the listing tools. The only usage signal is the implicit "publicly accessible" qualifier, which the agent must interpret on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.