Search the ACE Provider Mesh just in time. Shopify Global Catalog is live; eBay Browse and Amazon Creators join only when their explicit authorization gates are open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| country | No | US | |
| currency | No | ||
| max_price | No | ||
| min_price | No | ||
| providers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / providers / items / enumPrevious value: -[
- "shopify_global",
- "amazon_creators"
-]New value: +[
+ "shopify_global",
+ "ebay_browse",
+ "amazon_creators"
+]Input schema / properties / providers / maxItemsPrevious value: -2New value: +3Input schema / properties / providersAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "shopify_global",
+ "amazon_creators"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 2,
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that Shopify Global Catalog is live while eBay Browse and Amazon Creators are only available when their 'explicit authorization gates are open.' It does not cover read-only guarantees or error behavior, but the gating detail is substantive.
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 sentences convey the core operation and provider availability without wasted words. The active search verb is front-loaded and the gating nuance is placed in a compact second sentence.
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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-equipped. It explains provider gating but omits parameter semantics, output expectations, and selection guidance, leaving an agent needing more information to invoke it confidently.
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%, so the description must compensate for the seven parameters. It adds only provider availability context and leaves query, limit, country, currency, min_price, and max_price semantically unexplained.
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 and resource: 'Search the ACE Provider Mesh.' It also names the provider set and their availability, which helps distinguish the tool from commerce decision/identity sibling tools, though it never explicitly references an alternative.
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 phrase 'just in time' implies this is for on-demand discovery, and the provider-gate sentence clarifies when each source is usable. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like route_commerce_decision or resolve_product_identity, nor does it give exclusions.
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.
Most tools target distinct workflow stages (discovery, identity, claims, decision, referral), and the detailed descriptions help separate them. However, ace_check and commerce_preflight both expose ACE Verdict decisions, and verify_global_offer is an explicitly legacy alternative to commerce_preflight, so an agent can still misselect among the verification/decision tools.
All names are readable snake_case, and action tools use a verb_object pattern while query/metadata tools use noun phrases. The split is not chaotic, but it is inconsistent (e.g., product_discovery vs resolve_product_identity), and the commerce_/commercial_ prefix variation adds a minor wrinkle.
Fifteen tools is at the upper end of a well-scoped service and is reasonable for a broad commerce intelligence domain. The count feels slightly heavy because there are several descriptive/policy tools and at least one legacy overlap (verify_global_offer) that could be consolidated.
The set covers the core pre-purchase workflow: discovery, identity resolution, claim compilation, verification, recalls, merchant readiness, trust, referrals, and routing. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit claim-management or decision-status retrieval separate from the decision products, but these do not create dead ends.