Search Tweakers Pricewatch by name or SKU to find product IDs, names, URLs, and prices. Use the product_id with other tools for detailed specs and offers.
Search Tweakers Pricewatch by name or SKU. Returns at most ~8 matches (product_id, name, url, price when known). Use product_id with the other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — the ~8-result cap and which fields come back, with price only 'when known' — but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or what happens on no-match, leaving the disclosure partial.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the return-shape and chaining notes. Nothing here is padding.
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 one-parameter search with an output schema present, the description covers what it searches, roughly what it returns, and how its output feeds the other tools. An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, but pagination/bounding behavior is only loosely covered by 'at most ~8 matches'.
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 one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by clarifying that the query accepts a product name OR a SKU. That resolves the main ambiguity of a bare 'query' string, though it adds no format/length or matching-behavior detail.
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 (Search) and resource (Tweakers Pricewatch) plus the query dimension (by name or SKU). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but 'Use product_id with the other tools' signals this is the discovery entry point, so an agent can orient itself.
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?
It tells the agent what to do after this call (use product_id with the other tools), which is useful chaining guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over browse_category or list_categories, nor when it should be skipped, so the when-vs-alternatives condition is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.