Retrieve up to 50 public dStore cards by ID or URL, preserving successful results while reporting errors for individual lookups.
Read up to 50 public dStore cards by id or URL. The result keeps successful cards and reports individual lookup errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids_or_urls | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses partial-failure semantics ('keeps successful cards and reports individual lookup errors'), which is valuable for batch calls, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether any of the fields are unavailable for private cards.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the capability and the limit front-loaded and the result semantics immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input format, batch limit, and result behavior adequately. Only authentication/visibility caveats for 'public' cards are left unstated.
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 0%, so the schema only reveals an array of 1-500 char strings. The description compensates by naming the accepted key types (id or URL) and the 50-item cap, which is exactly the missing information an agent needs to populate the parameter correctly.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (public dStore cards) plus batch scope ('up to 50') and the lookup key types (id or URL). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ads_dstore_card_get or ads_dstore_search, which an agent would likely confuse with this tool.
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?
Batch usage is implied by the 'up to 50' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no pointer to ads_dstore_card_get for single lookups or ads_dstore_search for discovery. The agent must infer the choice from the capability list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.