set_project_marketsReplace the countries tracked for a project; newly added markets remain empty until rank checks run for them.
Replace the list of markets (countries) tracked for a project. New markets are empty until run_rank_check runs for them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markets | Yes | Full list of markets to track. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (from get_overview). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: the operation fully replaces the tracked-market list, and new markets remain empty until run_rank_check runs. Annotations already cover idempotency, non-destructiveness, and non-open-world behavior, so this is strong but not exhaustive about side effects on existing market data.
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?
The description is two tightly written sentences with no waste. The replacement semantics are front-loaded, and the follow-up dependency is stated immediately after.
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 two-parameter setter with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: it replaces the list and newly added markets are empty until a rank check runs. No further return-value or pagination detail is needed for this operation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both projectId and the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 market code format. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond identifying that markets are countries.
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 description states a specific verb and resource: replace the list of markets tracked for a project. It clearly distinguishes the operation from read-only siblings like list_markets by using 'Replace' and by noting the follow-up run_rank_check.
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?
It names run_rank_check as the follow-up needed to populate newly added markets, which gives clear operational context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other project-update tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.