Get full details for a specific SIIL Ostomy product.
Provide either product_id or sku. Returns complete product information
including description, images, attributes, variations, and pricing.
Args:
product_id: WooCommerce product ID (e.g. 15570)
sku: Product SKU (e.g. "MB01720")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | ||
| product_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by enumerating returned content (description, images, attributes, variations, pricing) and the either-or identifier rule. It omits error behavior (e.g., unknown SKU) and whether the lookup is exact-match only.
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?
Front-loaded with the core capability, followed by a tight usage sentence and a short Args block where each line earns its place. Slightly redundant to restate return fields when an output schema exists, but the text stays compact.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are covered: what it fetches, how to identify the product, and roughly what comes back. The only missing piece an agent might need is dispute resolution between the two identifiers, which is a minor gap.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well: it names the identifier style (WooCommerce product ID) and gives concrete examples for both parameters, plus the mutual-exclusivity hint. Minor gap: it does not specify precedence when both are passed or the failure mode when neither is.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for a specific SIIL Ostomy product') and scopes it to a single-product fetch, which contrasts implicitly with the sibling search_products/get_org_product. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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?
'Provide either product_id or sku' gives a concrete usage rule for lookups, which is real guidance beyond the schema. However, it never says when to use this tool versus search_products or get_org_product, nor what happens if both or neither identifier is supplied.
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.