get_productThe full UCP product record: description, images, categories, colors, sizes, decoration methods, price range, minimum quantity, lead time, and whether a free sample is offered. For a price at a specific quantity, call quote_price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Identify the product by exactly one of slug, id or sku. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by scoping the returned content, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, auth requirements, or error conditions—though none are strongly needed for a read-only lookup.
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 sentences convey the return scope and the key alternative without fluff. The long field list is purposeful and front-loaded before the cross-reference to quote_price.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the major fields of the full record and directing price-specific queries elsewhere. Combined with the schema's identifier guidance, an agent has what it needs to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%: each of id, sku, and slug has a clear description and the object-level 'exactly one' constraint is stated in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies the tool's purpose as returning the full UCP product record and enumerates its contents, which clearly distinguishes it from quote_price (price at a specific quantity) and the options-focused siblings. The title 'Get a product' reinforces the resource being retrieved.
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 explicitly routes price-at-quantity requests to quote_price, giving one clear when-not/alternative signal. It does not discuss other siblings such as get_product_options, but the 'full product record' framing provides enough context for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.