Locate all Ozon Seller and Performance API methods grouped in a section. Pass a section name or tag to retrieve the full list of available methods for business actions.
List all methods inside a section (by section name or tag).
Args: query: section name or tag, e.g. "FinanceAPI", "Финансовые отчёты", "ProductAPI"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only lookup ('List') and explains how the query is interpreted (section name or tag), but it does not mention matching behavior, error cases, or other operational details. This is adequate for a simple lookup tool but not rich.
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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a concise parameter explanation with examples. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.
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 single-parameter, simple lookup tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does, how the query parameter works, and what kind of answer to expect. No critical missing information prevents correct invocation.
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?
The schema only defines 'query' as a string with 0% coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining that it accepts a section name or tag and providing concrete examples like 'FinanceAPI' and 'Финансовые отчёты'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 tool's function: 'List all methods inside a section' with a specific resource and query input. It differentiates well from sibling tools like ozon_list_sections and ozon_describe_method by indicating that it returns methods within a section.
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 intended use case is clear: call this when you need all methods belonging to a section identified by name or tag. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.