get_itemFull details for one SKU including variants (merch) and purchase instructions.
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": {
"sku": "<sku>"
},
"name": "get_item"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' plus 'full details' conveys a read-only lookup and previews the return content (variants, purchase instructions), which is behavioral context. However, it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown SKU, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource, scope, and payload with zero wasted words. Nothing is buried or redundant.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry return and safety context. It partially does by naming the returned sections, but omits failure behavior and permissions for what is otherwise a simple one-parameter lookup.
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 0% and the single 'sku' property has no type-level description, so the description must compensate. 'One SKU' does clarify that the parameter identifies a single catalog item and is the lookup key, but adds no format, case, or sourcing guidance.
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: retrieve full details for one SKU. The phrase 'one SKU' implicitly separates it from the query-based sibling search_catalog, and it names the payload contents (variants, purchase instructions). It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-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 only implied: 'one SKU' suggests you call this when you already hold a specific SKU rather than a search query. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to search_catalog for discovery, and no prerequisite guidance.
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.