List seller products from Kaspi with optional active-status filtering and pagination to locate specific items.
Получение списка товаров продавца на Kaspi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| is_active | No | Фильтр по активности товара | |
| page_size | No | Размер страницы | |
| page_number | No | Номер страницы (от 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or response behavior. There is no mention of pagination behavior, potential errors, or any constraints beyond what the schema shows.
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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple list retrieval, but the absence of an output schema means the agent has no hint about the response format. It also does not mention that all parameters are optional or that pagination defaults exist, although the schema covers these. Still, for such a basic read operation, it is minimally sufficient.
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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the tool description adds no additional meaning. According to the rubric, a 3 is the baseline when schema coverage is high and the description does not compensate further.
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 clearly states the tool gets a list of seller's products on Kaspi, identifying both the verb and the resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools get_orders and get_order, which are order-focused, so an agent can tell them apart without extra context.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving products, and the sibling names make the distinction obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear but not formally stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.