Fetch details for up to 10 Divar listings at once, returning an independent result or actionable error for each listing, with optional refresh.
Read 1-10 listings with an independent result or actionable error for each member.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | ||
| listings | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| 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 cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive semantics. Beyond that, the description discloses a genuinely useful partial-failure contract: each member gets an 'independent result or actionable error,' so one bad listing doesn't fail the batch. It does not explain the 'refresh' behavior, but the per-member error semantics are real added value.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the batch scope and per-member behavior are stated immediately. Appropriately sized for a simple tool, though terse enough to leave gaps.
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 needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers batch semantics and per-member error handling but omits any explanation of 'refresh' and any usage routing, leaving the definition just adequate.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It restates the listings count constraint (1-10), which is already encoded as minItems/maxItems in the schema, and says nothing about what the 'refresh' boolean does. It 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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (listings) with a clear batch scope of 1-10. The batch count implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling dv_get_listing, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 exclusions, and no reference to alternatives like dv_get_listing or dv_search. Batch usage is only implied by the '1-10' phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.