Resolve up to 60 Rozetka product IDs into catalog data, using rich hydration when available and falling back to public search/id records when blocked.
Resolve up to 60 Rozetka product ids. Rich catalog hydration is attempted when available and falls back to public search/id records when blocked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: rich catalog hydration is best-effort and degrades to public search/id records when blocked. That is real value beyond schema, but it omits what happens to unresolvable ids, error/partial-failure behavior, and whether the operation is read-only.
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?
Two compact sentences with zero filler; the count constraint and the fallback behavior are both front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the batch cap and the hydration/fallback path, but leaves return shape, partial-failure handling, and safety profile unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must compensate. It restates the 1-60 count ('up to 60 product ids'), which is already encoded in maxItems/minItems, and does not clarify that ids may be integers or non-empty strings as the schema's anyOf allows. Minimal added meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('Resolve') and resource ('Rozetka product ids') plus the batch cap, which distinguishes it from the singular sibling rozetka_get_product. However 'resolve' is slightly ambiguous about what the resolution produces (raw ids vs hydrated records), so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this batch tool versus rozetka_get_product for a single id or rozetka_search_products for discovery. The batch nature is only implied by 'up to 60 product ids' and nothing is said about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.