Digikala MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the scope of information returned (specifications, reviews, feedback, buy suggestions) and the requirement for a specific product, which goes beyond what annotations convey about behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage), rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and when to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in context.

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 the single parameter 'product_id' well-documented as a 'Unique product identifier'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get comprehensive product information') and resource ('product'), with specific details about what information is included (specifications, expert reviews, customer feedback, buy suggestions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_products' by focusing on detailed information for a specific product rather than searching or listing.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need detailed information about a specific product'), which helps differentiate it from siblings like 'get_product_recommendations' or 'search_products'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for edge cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.