Digikala MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies pagination ('Returns 20 products per page'), currency details ('All prices in TOOMAN'), and language handling ('Farsi often being more comprehensive'). While annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description enriches operational understanding without contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with core functionality, followed by critical workflow instructions. Each sentence adds value (e.g., pagination, currency, language tips), though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details into the schema.

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 complexity (9 parameters, filtering/sorting), the description provides complete context: it explains prerequisites, workflow integration, language nuances, currency, and pagination. With annotations covering safety and an output schema presumably handling return values, no significant gaps remain.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal param-specific info (e.g., emphasizing category_id requirement and keyword usage), but most semantics are redundant. This 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 tool's purpose: 'Search for products within a specific category with filtering and sorting.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('products'), and scope ('within a specific category'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_product_details (detail retrieval) and search_text_lenz (text-based search).

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 and how to use this tool: 'ALWAYS call get_optimized_keywords_and_categories FIRST to get the category_id' and 'Search with BOTH Persian (Farsi) and English keywords separately.' It also mentions workflow integration and language-specific behavior, offering clear alternatives and prerequisites.

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