Search review attribute expressions by query or category, then use matched_selector and cluster_selector to pick the relevant scope for product comparison.
리뷰 속성 표현을 문자 검색한다. matched_selector와 cluster_selector를 보고 범위를 직접 선택한다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| category | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not explain pagination behavior despite limit/offset, nor what the referenced selectors mean. The mention of selector output fields is the only behavioral hint, and it is unexplained.
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 short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words structurally. But the second sentence is jargon-laden and references undefined fields, so brevity comes at the cost of actual 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 not be explained. Still, for a search tool with four fully undocumented parameters and mandatory result pagination, the description leaves too much unspecified, and its dangling selector terminology creates confusion rather than completeness.
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%: limit, query, offset, and category carry only titles and constraints, with no meaning documented anywhere. The description only implies text search (suggesting 'query') and says nothing about limit, offset, or the category filter, and its selector references do not map to any parameter. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('text-searches review attribute expressions'), which is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like list_review_states and get_review_evidence. However, the second sentence introduces 'matched_selector' and 'cluster_selector', terms that appear nowhere in the input schema, muddying rather than sharpening what the tool actually does. Core purpose is legible but the scope statement is opaque.
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?
'Look at matched_selector and cluster_selector and choose the scope yourself' gestures at a decision but names no alternative tool and gives no condition for when to use this versus get_review_evidence or list_review_states. The instruction is cryptic and does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.