get_products_batchFetch details for up to 20 product IDs at once, with per-product errors and 60-second cached snapshots to support batch product lookups.
Read 1–20 distinct product IDs with per-product errors and 60-second cached snapshots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | ||
| cache_ttl_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value by disclosing per-product error semantics (partial failures possible) and 60-second cached snapshots, which affects staleness expectations.
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?
One dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and range before the behavioral details. Every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description correctly focuses on the range, error behavior, and caching. The only gap is the undocumented nested `query` wrapper, which an agent must discover from the schema alone.
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 0%, so the sole `query.product_ids` parameter is undocumented structurally, and the description never mentions the `query` wrapper object. It does add the useful 'distinct' qualifier and restates the 1–20 bound that the schema already enforces via minItems/maxItems.
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?
Specific verb (Read) plus resource (product IDs) and explicit batch scope (1–20). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the single-item `get_product` and the discovery-oriented `search_products`, but never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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 states a range but gives no when-to-use guidance: it never says to prefer this over repeated `get_product` calls, nor when to fall back to `search_products` for unknown IDs. Usage is only implied by the batch shape.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.