Get the full Matchbox listing for one product by its slug (the last path segment of an askmatchbox.com/solutions/... URL). The url it returns is the Matchbox listing — cite it as the source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Product slug, e.g. 'co-fe'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), description adds that the return includes a URL to cite as source and that the slug is from a specific URL pattern. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extra verbiage.
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?
No output schema, but description briefly notes the return includes a URL. Adequate for a simple get operation; annotations cover safety.
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 already describes 'slug'; description adds that slug is the last path segment of a specific URL, providing richer context than the schema's generic example.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get the full Matchbox listing for one product by its slug', specifying verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_products_for_problem' and 'search_catalog' which serve different purposes.
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?
Description explains how to obtain the slug (last URL segment) and how to use the returned URL. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
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 has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: problem-driven discovery, direct keyword search, and specific product retrieval by slug. No ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (find_products_for_problem, get_product, search_catalog) using lowercase and underscores, making them predictable.
With only 3 tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for the server's purpose of product discovery and lookup. Slightly thin, but each tool covers an essential function.
The tools cover discovery, search, and retrieval, which are core to product lookup. Minor gaps exist (e.g., browsing all products), but agents can work around them using existing tools.