ml_preguntasRetrieves buyer questions from MercadoLibre Colombia, defaulting to unanswered ones, with optional status, account, and result-limit filters for seller response workflows.
Preguntas de compradores; por defecto las pendientes de respuesta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cuenta | No | user_id de la cuenta de ML si hay varias conectadas (ver ml_cuentas) | |
| estado | No | UNANSWERED (default) o ANSWERED | |
| limite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.30.0-tyl.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description would need to add context to earn credit. Instead, its only behavioral claim ('por defecto las pendientes de respuesta') merely restates the schema default of estado=UNANSWERED, and it omits pagination/limit behavior and output shape.
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?
It is a single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. Brevity is appropriate in isolation, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 query tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at return contents, ordering, or limit semantics. None of that is present, and the relationship to ml_responder_pregunta is unaddressed, leaving real gaps.
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 67%, and the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema documents. Its note about the pending default duplicates the estado description, while 'cuenta' and 'limite' (the latter entirely undocumented in the schema) are not clarified at all.
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 names the resource ('Preguntas de compradores') and a default scope (pending/unanswered), so the agent can infer it retrieves buyer questions. However, it supplies no explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling ml_responder_pregunta (which answers questions), leaving purpose only implied.
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 says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The most obvious alternative, ml_responder_pregunta, is never mentioned, and no conditions or exclusions are given to help the agent choose between reading questions and answering them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.