Skip to main content
Glama
zoomit-mcp

zoomit-mcp

by sepehr071

Search products by name

zm_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Iranian electronics products by name across all or one category and return cards with the lowest Toman price.

Instructions

Find products by name across all categories (or one) and return cards with the lowest price in Toman.

Use when the user names a product. Next: zm_product, zm_prices, zm_compare.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "zm_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results.
queryYesProduct name or model, Persian or English, e.g. iphone 17 pro.
categoryNoCategory slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds that results are product cards with the lowest price in Toman, but says nothing about pagination, ranking order, empty-result behavior, or how 'lowest price' is computed across variants.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with zero filler: the capability with its scope first, then the routing hint. Nothing is buried and nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, result shape and follow-ups. Only minor gaps remain around result ordering and behavior when no product matches.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so query, limit and category are fully documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's '(or one)' clarifies that restricting to a single category is optional but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource (find products by name) plus scope (all categories or one) and even the return shape (cards with the lowest price in Toman). It does not explain what the named sibling tools zm_product, zm_prices and zm_compare do, so the differentiation is only partial.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use when the user names a product' is an explicit trigger condition, and 'Next: zm_product, zm_prices, zm_compare' points the agent to the follow-up tools. There is no statement of when not to use it, such as browsing without a specific name (zm_categories/zm_list) or comparing two known models.

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