Récupère la fiche complète d'un produit par son slug. Inclut : nom, marque, catégorie, description, verdict éditorial, prix, note rédaction, note Amazon, ASIN, URL produit gluten-free.fr et URL achat Amazon affiliée.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug produit (ex 'rummo-spaghetti-sans-gluten'). Liste complète disponible via search_products. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose side effects, but it only states retrieval. No explicit statement about read-only nature or potential errors, though it's implied as a GET-like operation.
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?
Single concise sentence listing included fields; no redundant or promotional content, well-structured.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists the fields returned (name, brand, category, etc.), making the return content clear and sufficient for the tool's simple purpose.
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?
The schema fully describes the only parameter 'slug' with an example and a pointer to search_products; the tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves the complete product sheet by slug and enumerates the fields included, distinguishing it from the sibling tools (search and list).
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?
Implicitly guides usage by mentioning that the slug list is available via search_products, suggesting a search-then-fetch workflow, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings.
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.
The three tools have distinct purposes: retrieving a single product by slug, listing structured comparisons, and searching the product catalog. There is slight overlap between get_product and search_products since both return product details, but the use cases (exact lookup vs. filtered search) are clear.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_product, list_comparatifs, search_products. The only minor inconsistency is mixing English verbs (get, list, search) with a French noun (comparatifs), but the pattern is otherwise uniform.
With only 3 tools, the server is on the thin side but still covers the core operations for a gluten-free product catalog: retrieval, listing comparisons, and searching. It feels slightly minimal but not inadequate for a niche domain.
The server covers the main read operations: get a product, list comparisons, and search. However, there are no tools for browsing all products, getting a single comparison by slug, or accessing categories directly, which are notable gaps for a catalog-focused server.