Search for products in the GLOBUS online store by keyword. Sort results by price, discount, or name, and paginate through product listings.
Поиск товаров. sort: default | price_asc | price_desc | discount_desc | name_asc | name_desc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | default | |
| query | Yes | ||
| per_page | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only lists sort modes. It does not disclose pagination behavior, effect of the default sort, result shape, or any other operational traits beyond 'search products'.
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 compact and the sort list is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The first clause largely restates the tool name, so not every sentence earns its place.
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 are covered, but the tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no usage context. An agent cannot tell from this description how to construct an effective search or when this tool is preferable to sibling search/category tools.
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 description must compensate. It adds the allowed sort values (default, price_asc, etc.), which is useful, but it leaves query, page, and per_page semantics entirely undefined.
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 operation as product search ('Поиск товаров') and adds a sort-value list, so an agent can tell this is a product search tool. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like search_suggest or category_products.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose search_products over alternatives, no query-construction advice, and no mention of supported scenarios or exclusions. The description only states the resource and sort options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.