商品詳細
get_product1 つの商品の詳細を product_id で取得する。価格（JPYC 建て）・在庫・SKU・バリエーション・配送要否・対応チェーンを返す。購入の前に必ず呼んで、requires_shipping（配送先が必要か）と has_variants（オプション選択が必要か）を確認すること。
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | 商品 ID |
ec-storefront
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the returned data and two critical flags to inspect. It implies a read-only operation but could mention idempotency or absence of side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description completely covers what the tool does and what it returns. It also provides actionable guidance for purchase flow.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described. The description adds usage context but no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches details of a single product by product_id. It lists specific returned fields (price in JPYC, stock, SKU, variations, shipping requirement, supported chains), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_products_in_shop.
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?
The description explicitly instructs to call this tool before purchase to check requires_shipping and has_variants. While it does not mention alternatives, the context is clear and helpful for the agent's decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: order status, product details, shop details, listing products, listing shops, checkout quoting, searching, and payment submission. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern in English, using lowercase with underscores (e.g., get_product, list_shops, submit_payment). The naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for an e-commerce storefront. Each tool is necessary and focuses on core customer-facing operations (browse, search, checkout, payment, order status).
Completeness5/5
The tools cover the full customer journey: browsing shops and products, searching, initiating checkout with quote_checkout, submitting payment, and retrieving order status. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.