Retrieve a paginated list of products from a WebCake/StoreCake storefront with metadata like ID, name, slug, price, image, and status; search by name and use get_product for full details.
List products of the site (metadata only: id, name, slug, price, image, status). Use get_product for full details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| term | No | Search by product name | |
| limit | No | Items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does 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 adds meaningful return-scope context by stating results are "metadata only" and enumerating the fields, telling the agent it will not get full product detail.
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?
Two compact sentences, zero filler, with the return scope front-loaded and the alternative pointer at the end. Every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned fields, and pagination parameters are covered by the schema. It is largely complete for a list tool, though it omits pagination/default behavior and the search-vs-list boundary.
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%, so page, term, and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or defaults, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ("List products of the site") and enumerates the metadata fields returned. It clearly contrasts with get_product for full details. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_products, which likely overlaps given the 'term' search parameter.
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 routes the agent to get_product for full details, which is useful. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_products or list_categories, so usage is mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.