Retrieve catalog products from the 3D printing studio, including fixed pricing, photos, and estimated lead time. Filter by active status to show only publicly available items.
List catalog products manufactured by the studio with fixed pricing, photos, and estimated lead time
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activeOnly | No | When true, only returns active and publicly available catalog products |
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. It hints at return contents (fixed pricing, photos, lead time) and implies read-only behavior via 'List', but never states pagination, ordering, permission needs, or whether inactive products appear by default.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing attribute list (pricing, photos, lead time) is marginally useful but slightly dilutes the core action.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, an agent can invoke it, and the description gives a rough sense of returned fields. Missing are any hint of result volume/pagination and the default filtering behavior, which matter even for a simple list call.
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 single activeOnly parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the filter, notably what the default (omitted) behavior is.
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 (List) and resource (catalog products) with scope narrowed to products 'manufactured by the studio'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_product or explain what separates a catalog product from related resources like materials or qualities.
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 mention of alternatives such as get_product for a single product. The description reads as a passive inventory summary rather than a routing instruction for an agent choosing among ~35 siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.