Get 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 closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload includes the product's page and outbound link, which is real value given no output schema. It omits failure behavior, such as whether a missing slug errors or returns empty.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the return-content clause appended. There is no redundant or filler wording to trim.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description covers what it fetches and roughly what comes back. The only meaningful gap is not-found/error behavior, which matters modestly for a lookup-by-key tool.
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?
There is a single required parameter and the schema has 100% description coverage including the slug pattern and length bounds. The phrase 'by its slug' only restates the parameter's role and adds no format or lookup semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 by its slug') and makes the singular scope explicit, which separates it from list_products. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating a contrast, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 implied: use this when you have a slug and need a single product record. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the fallback path when a slug is unknown or not found, and no pointer to list_products for discovery.
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.