Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mercadolivre-mcp

mercadolivre-mcp

by romualdoag
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Perguntas do anúncio

get_item_questions

Retrieve public questions and answers for a Mercado Livre Brasil listing by item ID to review buyer inquiries and seller responses, with an optional result limit.

Instructions

Perguntas e respostas públicas de um anúncio.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_item_questions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
item_idYesid do anúncio

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The single word "públicas" hints that only public threads are returned, which is useful, but nothing is said about pagination (limit defaults to 10, max 50), whether answers are nested, ordering, or whether auth/seller context changes results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy, but it is concise to the point of under-specification rather than efficiency; there is no structure beyond a single noun phrase.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description still omits what a returned Q&A record looks like, how the limit affects results, and whether unanswered questions are included. Too much is left to be discovered at call time.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: item_id is documented in the schema while limit has no description at all. The description's phrase "de um anúncio" merely restates the required item_id and adds nothing about limit's paging behavior or truncation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Perguntas e respostas públicas de um anúncio" names the resource (public Q&A of a listing) but has no verb, so the action is only implied. It is understandable, yet nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as get_item, get_item_description, or get_product, which an agent must choose between.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to pick instead (e.g., get_item_description for description content). The agent must infer usage from the title alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools