Find which deals shoppers click most frequently across Dutch supermarkets, capped at 30 rows. Set an optional limit to control how many results return.
The deals users click most often, capped at 30 rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default when omitted: 10. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the ranking signal (user clicks) and the hard 30-row cap. It does not describe ordering ties or fields returned, but that is a minor omission.
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 sentence with zero filler, leading with the ranking criterion and ending with the size constraint. Nothing needs to be cut or reordered.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information; it communicates row count but not the shape of a deal record. Combined with the unaddressed overlap with pp_get_top_deals, it is barely sufficient for a single-parameter read tool.
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 100% and the schema states the 1-30 bounds and the default of 10, so the description has little room to add value. Its phrase 'capped at 30 rows' merely echoes the schema maximum, and it does not explain how limit interacts with the ranking.
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 defines the resource by its ranking criterion ('deals users click most often'), which is more meaningful than a bare restatement of the name. However, it gives no differentiation from pp_get_top_deals, a sibling that sounds functionally identical, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative. With a near-duplicate sibling (pp_get_top_deals) in the toolset, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.