recommend_for_consumer楽天市場でキーワードと予算からおすすめ商品を探します。ポイント還元後の実質価格とレビュー評価で上位5件で返します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hits | No | 表示件数（最大10件） | |
| budget | No | 予算（円）。指定するとポイント実質価格が予算内の商品を優先します | |
| keyword | Yes | 探したい商品のキーワード | |
| spu_rate | No | 楽天ポイントSPU倍率。楽天カードなし=3、カードあり=5、カード+アプリ=7（デフォルト5） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint annotation already present, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns the top 5 items ranked by effective price after points and review rating, and budget is used as a prioritization factor. It does not contradict the annotation or introduce additional behavioral caveats.
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 consists of one tightly worded sentence that delivers the action, criteria, and result in a front-loaded, efficient manner. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params) and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: search basis, ranking criteria, and result count. It doesn't enumerate specific return fields, but for a recommendation tool this is reasonably complete.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds limited value beyond the schema: it highlights keyword and budget as core inputs but does not mention hits or spu_rate explicitly, though the ranking logic implies their use. The schema itself already documents these parameters adequately.
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 a specific verb '探します' (search) with a defined resource '楽天市場' and a clear scope (keyword and budget). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_prices and search_business_hotel by focusing on product recommendations using rating and effective price.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when looking for recommended products based on keyword and budget) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It lacks direct guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, leaving usage context implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct task: price comparison for a specific item, product recommendation by keyword and budget, and hotel search with location and dates. No overlap.
All tools use consistent snake_case and verb_noun pattern (compare_prices, recommend_for_consumer, search_business_hotel).
Three tools is on the low side but covers the core functions of comparing prices, recommending products, and searching hotels. Reasonable for a focused utility server.
The tool surface covers basic search and comparison but lacks operations like managing favorites, booking hotels, or viewing detailed product info. Some gaps exist for a full shopping/travel assistant.