digikala-mcp

List Product Recommendation Sections

list_product_recommendation_sections

Read-only

Retrieve available recommendation section keys for a product ID to identify which recommendation sections can be requested.

Instructions

Read available recommendation section keys for this product; cached 60 seconds.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "product_id": "<product_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_product_recommendation_sections"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`product_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`sections`	No
`warnings`	No
`product_id`	Yes
`source_url`	No
`observed_at`	No
`cache_ttl_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: the 60-second cache TTL, which tells an agent results may be stale. It does not discuss output shape or pagination, but with an output schema present that burden is reduced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action and resource, with the caching caveat appended. No filler, no restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and the notable caching behavior. The main omission is any routing guidance relative to get_product_recommendations, which would help but is not strictly required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only gestures at the parameter via 'this product'. The required product_id, its numeric-string pattern, and any format expectations are left entirely to the schema, so the description adds no semantic detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('recommendation section keys for this product'), which is meaningfully distinct from the sibling get_product_recommendations. The noun 'keys' is slightly ambiguous (keys of a section list vs. section identifiers), keeping it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No indication of when to use this tool versus get_product_recommendations or get_product_recommendations-adjacent siblings. The only conditional context given is a caching note, which is not usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server