Store Catalog

Get one product in full

get_product

Returns one product of a Shopify or WooCommerce store in full: every variant with its options, SKU, barcode (GTIN/UPC/EAN, Shopify), price and sale price, stock where the store publishes it, weight in grams; options, images with alt text, description as plain text, tags, rating (WooCommerce). Pass the product page URL, or the store URL and the product handle. Costs 1 credit.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`handle`	No	The product handle (Shopify) or slug (WooCommerce), with store_url. Every list_products and search_products row carries it.
`store_url`	No	The store's address: a home page (https://www.allbirds.com), a Shopify collection page (/collections/mens) or a WooCommerce category page (/product-category/shoes/). 'allbirds.com' works too.
`product_url`	No	The product page URL, e.g. https://www.allbirds.com/products/mens-wool-runners.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: the call costs 1 credit. It also honestly flags conditional data availability ('stock where the store publishes it', rating only for WooCommerce). It omits auth requirements and failure behavior for invalid URLs, which keeps 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The scope and the field inventory are front-loaded, and the calling instructions plus credit cost follow. The field enumeration is dense but relevant given the absence of an output schema; nothing is genuinely wasted, though the single long sentence could be split for scanability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, listing returned fields is the right compensation, and it covers variants, options, images, text, tags, rating plus the credit cost and the store_url/handle fallback. Auth prerequisites and behavior on an invalid or unsupported store are the remaining gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the handle/slug duality and the accepted URL forms. The description restates the URL-or-store_url+handle pattern without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (one product) and explicitly characterizes scope as 'in full', listing the exact variant/option/image/description fields covered. An agent can distinguish this from list_products and search_products at a glance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It specifies the two calling patterns (product page URL, or store URL + handle) and notes that every list_products and search_products row carries the handle, implicitly routing the agent from browsing tools to this one. It does not state when to avoid this tool or what to do when a store publishes no stock data beyond that caveat.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Store Catalog tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.