get_productGet one product of a DMCommerce store: description, every option (size, color...) with its price in BRL and whether it is available, and the link that opens that option on the store website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store | Yes | Store id ("store" field from find_store or search_products). | |
| product | Yes | Product id ("product" field from search_products). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value by disclosing the return content (options, BRL pricing, availability, deep link), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits any note on missing-product behavior or auth, keeping it short of a 5.
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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource before enumerating outputs. It is dense but every clause earns its place by describing the return shape, with no 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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the returned fields, which is what an agent needs for this simple two-param read. It is essentially complete, lacking only edge-case behavior such as invalid-id handling.
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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents store and product ids. The description adds no additional format or constraint detail, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.
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 (get) and resource (one product) and enumerates exactly what is returned: description, options with BRL prices and availability, and the store link. It is clear this is single-item retrieval, implicitly contrasting with the sibling search_products, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the schema notes the id comes from find_store/search_products, but the description itself gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusion against search_products. An agent can infer it fetches a known product id, but nothing is spelled out.
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.