ml_buscarSearch public MercadoLibre Colombia listings to inspect competitor offers and market prices, helping sellers make informed pricing decisions.
Busca publicaciones públicas en MercadoLibre (para espiar competencia y precios de mercado).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sitio | No | ||
| cuenta | No | user_id de la cuenta de ML si hay varias conectadas (ver ml_cuentas) | |
| limite | No | ||
| consulta | Yes | Qué buscar, ej "termo acero 1 litro" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.30.0-tyl.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it searches only 'públicas' listings, but says nothing about pagination behavior, how 'limite' bounds results, whether a site must be specified, or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the verb and resource come first and the parenthetical earns its place by signaling intent. It is perhaps slightly too terse for a 4-parameter tool, but structurally efficient.
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 tool with 4 parameters (2 undocumented), no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description is too thin. It does not explain the shape of results, whether 'sitio' defaults to a specific country, or how 'limite' interacts with result pages — context an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 coverage is only 50%: 'consulta' and 'cuenta' are documented in the schema, while 'sitio' and 'limite' carry no descriptions anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the half of the schema that is undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (Busca) and resource (publicaciones públicas en MercadoLibre), plus the intended purpose (competitor and price reconnaissance). However, it does not distinguish itself from similarly competition-oriented siblings such as ml_novedades_competencia, ml_historial_competencia, or ml_descubrir_ganadores, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 parenthetical '(para espiar competencia y precios de mercado)' implies a use context, so usage is suggested rather than absent. But there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives among the many competitor-tracking siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.