Skip to main content
Glama

get_product_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full details and current stock for one Okun Koneosa product.

Args: product_id: The numeric product id returned by search_catalog.

Returns: JSON with the full product record: id, name, name_raw, sku, ean, brand, category, full description (not truncated), price_gross, price_net, vat_percent, currency, unit, weight_kg, product_url, image_url, plus a freshly checked in_stock / stock_quantity.

Notes: - Stock is read at call time from a separate availability endpoint, so it is more current than the value returned by search_catalog. - Returns {"error": "product_not_found"} for unknown or unpublished ids. Products that are out of stock are unpublished, so a previously valid id can stop resolving. - To let the user buy, pass product_url, or build a cart link with create_cart_link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
product_idYesProduct ID from search_catalog

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProduct ID — pass to get_product_details or create_cart_link
eanNoEAN/GTIN barcode, when known
skuNoOrdering number used by the shop
nameYesReadable product name
unitNoSelling unit, e.g. 'kpl'
brandNoManufacturer
categoryNo
currencyNoEUR
in_stockYes
name_rawNoSupplier's own spelling, often ALL CAPS
image_urlNoNull for most products — photography is still being collected
price_netYesPrice excl. VAT
weight_kgNo
disclaimerYes
descriptionNoFull description, not truncated
price_grossYesPrice incl. Finnish VAT 25.5%
product_urlYesPublic product page
vat_percentNo
stock_checkedYesTrue if stock was re-read from the availability endpoint
stock_quantityYesUnits available right now
description_truncatedNoTrue if description was cut — use get_product_details

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: stock is fetched fresh from a separate endpoint, it returns an error for unknown/unpublished ids, and out-of-stock products become unpublished. No contradiction.

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: Args, Returns, Notes. It is concise (every sentence adds value) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No unnecessary 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 retrieval tool with 1 param, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete. It covers behavior, error conditions, sourcing of parameters, and relationship to other tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 1 param with description 'Product ID from search_catalog'. The description clarifies it is numeric and from search_catalog, adding meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but the description provides useful sourcing context.

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 full details and current stock for one Okun Koneosa product.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('product details'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_catalog' (searching) and 'create_cart_link' (building a cart link).

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 description explains when to use this tool (to get more current stock than search_catalog) and provides error handling notes. It also mentions that product_id comes from search_catalog, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

search_catalog and search_shop_catalog are exact duplicates with identical descriptions and arguments, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish them. The other three tools are distinct, but having two tools that do the same thing creates genuine ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, get_, search_). However, the duplicate functionality is named inconsistently (search_catalog vs search_shop_catalog), which is a minor deviation from naming clarity.

Tool Count4/5

With 5 tools the count is within the reasonable range for a shop catalog server. However, one tool is redundant, effectively reducing the unique functionality to 4 tools, which is still acceptable but not ideal.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers product search, product details, cart link creation, and policy lookup, which are the core operations for a catalog-driven shop. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct category listing) but these are mitigated by external REST endpoints and the tools work together for common workflows.

Resources