get_similarFind products similar to a given product, for the storefront UI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| device_id | No | ||
| thread_id | No | ||
| product_id | Yes | Canonical product ID to find similar products for. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| products | Yes | ||
| next_page_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / next_page_token / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / next_page_token / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Input schema / properties / device_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / thread_idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic function and does not explain what it returns, any limitations, or side effects beyond what annotations imply. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but adds minimal value.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It is efficient, avoids redundancy, and is free of fluff. Every word 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 4 parameters and only 25% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify the purpose of limit, device_id, or thread_id, nor does it provide usage context relative to sibling tools. Even with an output schema, the description fails to give an agent enough to confidently invoke 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 coverage is only 25% (only product_id has a description). The description implicitly covers product_id ('given a product') but provides no semantics for limit, device_id, or thread_id. With such low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain the meaning or purpose of these parameters.
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 clearly states the action ('Find products similar to a given product') and the context ('for the storefront UI'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_products (query-based) and browse_products (general browsing). The verb and resource are unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only hints at 'storefront UI' but does not explain scenarios, exclusions, or how it differs from search_products or browse_products. An agent is left to infer usage.
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.