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. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the tool returns paginated results with a 'has_more' flag, describes the content of listings (price, revenue, profit, bid count, verification status), and mentions response format options. This provides useful behavioral details not covered by annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Examples) and every sentence earns its place. The front-loaded purpose statement is followed by organized parameter documentation and practical examples. No wasted words while maintaining clarity.

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 (7 parameters, search functionality) and rich annotations, the description provides good completeness: it explains what the tool does, documents all parameters, describes the return format and content, and includes helpful examples. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but overall it's quite complete for a search tool without an output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with enums, defaults, and descriptions. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats what's in the schema (though organized differently), adding minimal semantic value. The examples help illustrate parameter combinations but don't add new parameter 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?

The description clearly states 'Search and browse listings on the Flippa marketplace' - a specific verb ('search') and resource ('listings') that distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_listing' or 'get_listing'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'market_overview' which might also involve searching/browsing.

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 through examples (searching SaaS listings, most profitable websites, ending soon auctions) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'flippa_get_listing' for specific listings or 'flippa_market_overview' for aggregated data. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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