List registered electronic component shops with their shipping policies and supported regions, optionally filtered by country, to identify retailers that deliver to a target location.
List all registered electronic component stores with their shipping policies and supported regions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| countries | No | Filter shops by country/region, e.g. ['de'] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' reasonably implies a read-only, non-mutating call and it does disclose the returned fields, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result size, or whether filtering is supported server-side — details that matter for a catalog endpoint.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficiently sized for a simple list endpoint, though it could have spent the same space on the filter instead of 'all registered'.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed and what each entry contains. The remaining gap is behavioral detail (result volume/ordering), which is minor but not fully addressed.
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% and the single 'countries' parameter is documented with a concrete example (['de']) in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the filter (e.g. behavior when omitted, multi-country semantics), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all registered electronic component stores'), plus the payload contents (shipping policies and supported regions). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which all deal with individual components or cart operations, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the browse/discovery tool for shops, but the description never states when to call it versus the component-search siblings, nor any prerequisites. The schema's country filter is not even hinted at here, so guidance on how to narrow results must come from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.