get_product
Read-onlyIdempotent
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Product UUID |
discovery
by dev.nexbid
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the alias trait and the output format, but no additional behavioral context like auth needs or error handling. This is adequate given the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (tool_description, when_to_use, combination_hints, output_format), each concise and without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys all necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description is complete: it defines purpose, usage context, parameter source, output format, and even a combination workflow. The rich annotations and the absence of nested objects further reduce the need for additional explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of the parameter with type, format, and description. The description adds some context about where to obtain the product UUID (from list_products or nexbid_search), which helps but is not essential since the schema already defines the parameter clearly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states "Get detailed product information by ID" with a specific verb and resource. It also notes it's an alias for nexbid_product, which distinguishes it from list_products and nexbid_search, and the output format further clarifies its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The <when_to_use> section explicitly states to use this when you have a product UUID from list_products or nexbid_search. This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative get tools. The combination hints additionally suggest a broader workflow, strengthening the guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between get_product and nexbid_product, which are explicitly described as aliases, and between list_products and nexbid_search with content_type='product'. This could cause confusion, though descriptions help clarify. Other tools like activate, pause, and cancel are well-differentiated for media buy lifecycle management.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is mixed with no consistent pattern. Some tools use verb_noun (e.g., create_media_buy, list_inventory), others use noun_verb (e.g., nexbid_search, nexbid_purchase), and some are single verbs (e.g., activate, pause, cancel). While readable, the lack of a uniform convention across the set reduces predictability.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the count is on the higher side but reasonable for the dual domains of media buying and marketplace discovery. It covers operations like listing, creating, managing, and reporting, which justifies the number. However, it borders on feeling heavy, especially with overlapping tools like get_product and nexbid_product.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for both media buying (create, submit, activate, pause, cancel, track, settle, report, compliance) and marketplace discovery (search, categories, product details, purchase, order status). There are no obvious gaps; workflows are well-supported with clear combination hints, ensuring agents can handle end-to-end tasks without dead ends.