get_productRetrieve current details for a known Tudetic product ID and optional variant ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | es | |
| shop | No | tudetic | |
| pricing | No | customer only works with a valid logged-in PrestaShop session. The server derives the group. | public |
| product_id | Yes | ||
| variant_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | ||
| schema_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the retrieval nature is clear. The description adds the minor point that details are 'current', but does not go beyond this to discuss important behavioral aspects like authentication, errors, or limitations.
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?
One sentence, 15 words, directly answers the core purpose. There is no redundant information or padding; every phrase contributes to the intent.
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?
A single-sentence description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool, especially with an output schema and annotations covering safety. However, the wording 'Tudetic product' is misleading because the 'shop' parameter supports multiple other brands, and the description does not clarify this broader context.
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 only 20%. The description does add that 'product ID' is the required key and 'variant ID' is optional, but it does not explain the meaning of 'lang', 'shop', or 'pricing' beyond what the schema already provides, leaving significant semantic gaps for a 5-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve current details for a known Tudetic product ID and optional variant ID'. It clearly identifies the tool's action and scope, distinguishing it from searching for products or checking compatibility. The phrase 'known product ID' emphasizes that this is a direct lookup rather than a search.
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 implies usage: use the tool when you already have a product ID and optionally a variant ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like search_products when the ID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.