get_productGet one product by its slug, with its page and outbound link.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_product"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The product slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful shape information (the result carries a page and outbound link), which matters since there is no output schema, but it omits not-found behavior and whether those embedded objects can be absent.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause (key, scope, returned data) carries information.
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?
For a single-parameter lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials. A note on missing-product behavior and whether page/outbound link are always present would close the remaining gap.
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 fully documented with pattern and length constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase "by its slug" merely echoes the parameter name and adds no format or resolution detail beyond the schema.
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 product") plus the key ("by its slug") and the payload ("with its page and outbound link"). The singular framing implicitly separates it from list_products, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implied: you need a single product and already know its slug. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_products or search_listings, or what to do if only a name/query is known.
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.