get_productFull record for one product by catalogue id (slug): specifications, features, applications, FAQs, certifications listed on the page, lead-time band, language editions, Markdown twin and the quote channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product id / URL slug, e.g. metal-clad-switchgear |
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?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the exact fields returned in the full record. This is valuable because there is no output schema to communicate return structure.
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?
One well-structured sentence that leads with the core action and scope, then enumerates the return contents in a compact list. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description fully substitutes for return-value documentation by listing the record's major sections. The tool is simple enough that the description leaves no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.
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%, with the id parameter described as 'Product id / URL slug'. The description's 'by catalogue id (slug)' matches and reinforces, but does not add new parameter details 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 returns a full record for one product using its catalogue id/slug, with an explicit list of returned content. This distinguishes it sharply from siblings like list_products or search_knowledge.
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 use case is clear: retrieve a complete product record when you have a specific product id/slug. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended context is evident from the description.
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 clearly distinct resources and actions, such as products, company facts, lead times, RFQ handoff, semantic search, and EV capacity estimation. The only mild overlap is get_lead_time versus the lead-time band already embedded in get_product, and search_knowledge can return passages that overlap with structured tools.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: estimate_, get_, list_, request_, and search_. There are no mixed naming conventions, generic verbs, or vague tool names.
Seven tools is a well-scoped count for a knowledge-and-estimation server. Each tool covers a distinct need without filler or redundant entries.
The tool set supports product discovery, detailed product lookup, company facts, lead times, quote handoff, semantic search, and EV charging estimation, covering core user journeys. A minor gap is that other configurators mentioned in the quote handoff, such as the transformer configurator, are only exposed as links rather than executable tools.