ml_actualizar_publicacionModify a live MercadoLibre listing to change price, stock, or active/paused status; requires explicit user confirmation before updating.
MODIFICA una publicación real: precio, stock o estado (pausar/activar). Usar solo con confirmación explícita del usuario.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stock | No | ||
| cuenta | No | user_id de la cuenta de ML si hay varias conectadas (ver ml_cuentas) | |
| estado | No | ||
| precio | No | ||
| item_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description adds that the operation modifies a real publication and requires explicit user confirmation. It does not disclose whether changes are reversible, what side effects occur, or permission requirements, so behavioral detail remains thin.
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 concise sentence with the verb front-loaded in caps and the usage condition appended. No filler or redundant restatement.
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 5-param mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse: it does not explain item_id, the cuenta parameter, or the return/effect of the change. It covers purpose and confirmation but leaves key invocation details missing.
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 only 20%, so the description carries more weight. It names precio, stock, and estado as modifiable fields and clarifies estado via pausar/activar, but omits item_id (required) and cuenta, leaving two parameters without added meaning.
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 (MODIFICA) and resource (publicación real) and enumerates the modifiable fields. It does not name any sibling tool to distinguish from ml_crear_publicacion or ml_publicaciones, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Explicitly says to use only with explicit user confirmation, which is a clear usage condition. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use beyond that confirmation gate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.