ml_publicacionesRetrieve a seller's MercadoLibre listings with price, stock, and status to monitor inventory and track active, paused, or closed items.
Lista las publicaciones del vendedor con precio, stock y estado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cuenta | No | user_id de la cuenta de ML si hay varias conectadas (ver ml_cuentas) | |
| estado | No | active, paused, closed | |
| limite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the description only needs to add context. It clarifies scope ('del vendedor') and the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination via 'limite', multi-account handling via 'cuenta', or result ordering/cap. Useful but thin for a listing tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and returned data stated immediately; no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is appropriate but contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere.
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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, a single sentence is close to adequate. Still, it omits how 'limite' bounds results and how 'cuenta' behaves with multiple connected accounts, leaving real gaps an agent would hit at call time.
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 coverage is 67%, above the 50% threshold, so the schema already documents 'cuenta' and 'estado'. The description mentions 'estado' only as a returned field, not as a filter, and never explains 'limite'. It adds little syntactic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.
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 (Lista) and resource (publicaciones del vendedor) plus the fields returned (precio, stock, estado), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. However, it gives no differentiation from the singular sibling ml_publicacion, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-single distinction.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite many overlapping siblings (ml_publicacion, ml_buscar, ml_auditar_publicaciones). The phrase 'del vendedor' implicitly scopes it to the seller's own listings, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over ml_buscar or a single-publication lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.