get_productGet full detail for one product by its slug (handle): description, price, and each variant/option with price and in-stock status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Product slug/handle (last path segment of the product URL) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| live | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| image | No | ||
| price | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| on_sale | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| in_stock | No | ||
| variants | No | ||
| regular_price | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying exactly what is returned: description, price, and each variant/option with price and stock status.
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 conveys the operation, resource, key field, and payload scope without any filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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 full parameter coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations covering safety, the description is complete for a single-product retrieval tool. No relevant call-time details are missing.
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%, and the slug parameter already has clear documentation including the 'last path segment' detail. The description's mention of slug/handle adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Get full detail') and resource ('one product by its slug'), and enumerates the content. Its singular focus clearly separates it from siblings like list_products and search_products.
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 description establishes a clear usage context: use when a single product slug is available and full product details are needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the singular retrieval purpose is unambiguous.
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.