Returns full details for a single product by slug: name, description, price, sizes, colors, stock status, and product page URL. Only for e-commerce clients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_slug | Yes | Unique slug identifying the e-commerce client. | |
| product_slug | Yes | Slug of the product. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but does not mention error behavior (e.g., product not found), permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The read-only nature is implied by 'Returns', but no edge cases or side effects are disclosed.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose, then lists the returned fields in a compact list. No wasted words, and the 'Only for e-commerce clients' clause is a valuable differentiator.
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 simple retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return content. It could be more complete by addressing not-found behavior or prerequisites, but given the low complexity and the field list, it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.
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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond confirming the lookup is by slug. The phrase 'by slug' reinforces the parameter semantics but does not introduce new meaning 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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('full details for a single product by slug'), then enumerates the returned fields. It also narrows the context with 'Only for e-commerce clients', which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_products or get_vehicle_details.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: for a single product's full details, and only for e-commerce clients. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the scope is sufficiently defined to guide selection in most cases.
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.