get_product
[EN] Get one product's full detail by SKU (price, U-value/η, stock, JAN, successor). / SKU を指定して 1 製品の詳細 (価格・性能値 U値/η値・在庫・JAN・後継品) を取得。
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | 製品 SKU |
bimhouse
by house.bim
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It indicates it returns full detail, implying read-only, but doesn't explicitly state no side effects, auth needs, or error conditions. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Two concise sentences, bilingual, front-loaded with key info. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-SKU tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the returned fields (price, U-value, stock, JAN, successor), which is sufficient. Missing error handling or special notes, but overall complete for this complexity.
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 coverage is 100% with 'sku' described as '製品 SKU'. The description adds that the tool operates by SKU but offers no further format or constraints. With full schema coverage, baseline of 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?
Description clearly states action: 'Get one product's full detail by SKU' and lists specific fields (price, U-value, stock, JAN, successor). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_catalog (searching) or other get_ tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Though it's the only tool for retrieving a single product by SKU with full details, no exclusions or references to siblings (e.g., search_catalog) are provided.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some potential overlap exists (e.g., get_site_context and get_houki_rules both provide site conditions, and set_site_context vs. upsert_zoning_rule could be confused). Overall, descriptions help disambiguate.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools predominantly use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_house, update_house, set_visibility). A few outliers like houki_check and whoami break the pattern, but naming is mostly consistent.
Tool Count3/5
29 tools is heavy but covers a broad domain (house design, construction, catalog, contractors, admin). Some tools are niche (e.g., list_incomplete_addresses, set_forkable), but each serves a clear purpose. Could be streamlined.
Completeness4/5
Core operations for house lifecycle (create, read, update, check) are present. Lacks explicit delete/archive for houses (only set_visibility), and no tool to update site context directly (only set via set_site_context). Minor gaps but domain is well-covered.