productEverything the product page states about one product, by slug: what it does, what it runs on, its editions and prices, and the cited comparison rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The product slug, e.g. "consigna". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by detailing what is returned (what it does, runs on, editions/prices, comparison rows), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the scope ('Everything the product page states') and enumerates key content areas without filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool is a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. It could mention error behavior (e.g., not-found) but that is a minor gap for a read-only lookup tool. The enumeration of return content is sufficient.
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% with a clear description of the 'id' parameter as a product slug and example. The description merely echoes this ('by slug'), adding no new semantics or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('get one product') and elaborates on the scope ('everything the product page states'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_catalogue (search) or checkout_link (purchase-related). The mention of 'by slug' reinforces the precise retrieval mechanism.
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 clearly implies usage when you have a product slug and need detailed product page content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent would know to use this for a single product lookup rather than a search or checkout operation.
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.