ecwid_get_productGet a single product by its id, including price, stock, options, images, and category assignments. Ecwid REST: GET /products/{productId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Product id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe read-only nature. The description adds the REST method and response contents, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as 404/not-found handling, authorization requirements, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two short sentences: the first states the action and result, the second gives the exact REST mapping. Every phrase contributes useful information with no filler.
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 read-only get-by-ID tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently tells the agent what it does, what data it returns, and how to identify the resource. No additional context seems necessary for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces that product_id selects the single product to retrieve via the REST path. This is adequate but adds little beyond the schema's existing "Product id." documentation.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get a single product by its id." It also lists the key data included (price, stock, options, images, category assignments), making the purpose concrete and distinguishable from broader search/list siblings.
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?
"Get a single product by its id" implies this tool is for direct lookup by known ID, while sibling search tools are for discovery. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to ecwid_search_products as the alternative for criteria-based lookup.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., get by ID vs. search/list, adjust inventory vs. update order). The prefix `ecwid_` plus verb-noun structure makes boundaries clear, and no two tools appear to perform the same task.
All tools follow the `ecwid_<verb>_<resource>` pattern with verbs like get, list, search, adjust, update. The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools is within the ideal range for a domain-specific API covering products, categories, customers, orders, coupons, and store profile. Each tool has a clear purpose and the set is well-scoped without redundancy.
The set covers read operations well but lacks create/update/delete for most resources (products, categories, customers, coupons). Only inventory adjustment and order status update are provided as mutations, leaving significant gaps in lifecycle management that an agent would likely need.