Search SnappShop by query and return normalized product results with a configurable limit for AI-driven product lookup and comparison.
Search SnappShop and return normalized products.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Saying results are 'normalized' hints at the output shape, but it discloses nothing about pagination, rate limits, authentication, or how the limit interacts with total results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and store front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, which is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the operation is a simple search. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no routing guidance among ten siblings, the definition is only minimally adequate for 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%: neither 'query' nor 'limit' is documented in the schema, and the description explains neither. 'query' is inferable from the tool name, but 'limit' (default 10) is completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Search) and resource (SnappShop), plus what it returns (normalized products). It is distinguishable from search_digikala by the named store, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling or with get_snappshop_product.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., search_digikala for the other store, get_snappshop_product for a known item), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.