get_productGet one live FastDrop product by its slug. Returns the MCP URL if set, mcpVerified, last-verified timestamp when available, and the probed tool list (name + description) read from the endpoint - not maker-supplied tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Product slug from the /p/<slug> URL |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / product / properties / makerAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Who built the product. label is their own description of themselves (e.g. \"Indie hacker\"), \"Builder\" when unset. handle and profile are present once they have a public FastDrop profile.",
+ "properties": {
+ "handle": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "profile": {
+ "description": "Public profile URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "label"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what is returned and by flagging that the probed tool list is read from the endpoint "not maker-supplied tags" — a provenance distinction an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. Every clause carries information — the lookup key, the liveness constraint, and the returned payload characteristics.
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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the response shape, the description only needs to explain what makes this lookup distinctive, which it does. The one remaining gap is error/not-found behavior for an unknown or delisted slug.
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 100% and the single slug parameter is documented in the schema as coming from the /p/<slug> URL. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get one live FastDrop product by its slug") and scopes it to a single live product, which implicitly separates it from search_products and list_* siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so an agent must infer that the list/search siblings are for the discovery case.
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?
Usage is implied by the slug requirement and the "live" qualifier, but the description never states when to prefer this over search_products or find_tools, nor what happens for a non-existent or non-live slug. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
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.