Save the exact product URL, preserving referral attribution, so the original source is retained when adding items to a shopping list.
Save the exact URL, including existing referral attribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| list_id | Yes | ||
| variant | No | ||
| quantity | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Save,' implying mutation, but does not disclose idempotency (despite the idempotency_key parameter), side effects, authorization needs, or what happens on duplicate captures. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It omits essential operational details, so the brevity is a deficiency, not a virtue.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (six parameters, one required), an output schema exists, but the description still leaves critical gaps: parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral expectations. The description is far from complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional schema inspection.
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 the description mentions none of the six parameters. It does not explain what list_id, url, title, variant, quantity, or idempotency_key mean or how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema-level descriptions.
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?
The description states a clear action ('Save') and a specific resource ('the exact URL') with a notable qualifier ('including existing referral attribution'). This distinguishes the core purpose from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly mention the list context implied by the required list_id parameter, leaving some ambiguity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reserve_item or create_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other capture-like operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.