Flippa MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return content (price, revenue, etc.) and response format options, which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections (Args, Returns, Examples) that are efficient and informative. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-organized.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), rich annotations (covering read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It adds useful context on return content and examples, compensating for the lack of an output schema, making it fully adequate for agent use.

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 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (listing_id as ID, response_format with enum and default). The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only restating the parameter names and providing examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'full details for a specific Flippa listing by ID', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'flippa_search_listings' (which searches multiple listings) and 'flippa_analyze_listing' (which likely analyzes rather than fetches raw details), providing specific differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying it's for a 'specific' listing by ID, suggesting it should be used when you have a known listing ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'flippa_search_listings' for unknown IDs) or name alternatives, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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