Displays the dStore card and advertising-placement adapter configuration using public catalog data, without sending credentials or publishing changes.
Show the dStore card and advertising-placement adapter configuration. It reads public catalog data and does not send credentials or publish changes.
| 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 disclosure burden and does so for the most important risk: it states the tool reads public catalog data and neither transmits credentials nor publishes changes, which is solid read-only/side-effect transparency. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or whether any configuration state is cached or mutated server-side.
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 tight sentences with the subject stated first and the safety caveat second; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the name or schema.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and 'the dStore card and advertising-placement adapter configuration' is a rough sketch rather than a description of the returned fields or shape. For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations, that leaves a real gap in knowing what to expect from the response.
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?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies a simple parameterless call and adds no misleading parameter talk.
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 verb+resource is concrete: it 'shows' the dStore card and advertising-placement adapter configuration, so an agent knows the subject matter. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as ads_dstore_cards_get, ads_dstore_card_get, or ads_store_status, leaving overlap for the agent to resolve unaided.
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?
Usage is only implied: the negation clause ('does not send credentials or publish changes') signals this is a safe inspection call rather than a mutation, which effectively narrows its role. There is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative among the several dStore/status siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.