lookup_productIdentify a dermacosmetic product in MHS BLOOM's neutral reference and return its descriptive facts (brand, key ingredients, the concerns it's oriented toward, texture, fragrance, price band, who it's aimed at) plus a link to its reference page. Descriptive only — not a personal skin verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Product name and/or brand, e.g. "CeraVe foaming cleanser". |
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 full burden. It mentions returning descriptive facts and a link, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as data sources, latency, or authorization requirements. It does not state if the tool is read-only or if it makes external API calls.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and output, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys what the tool does and its limitation.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and output elements. However, it lacks details about the output structure or pagination, but this is partially compensated by the sibling context and the tool's clear scope.
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 has 100% coverage with a clear example in the parameter description. The tool description adds overall context but does not significantly enhance the meaning of the query parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the tool identifies a specific skincare product and returns detailed factual information, including brand, ingredients, concerns, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_products (which likely returns multiple results) and find_alternatives (which suggests alternatives) by emphasizing 'neutral reference' and 'descriptive only'.
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 gives context that the tool is for descriptive facts only and not personal skin verdicts, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like list_brands or search_products. The guidance is implied but not direct.
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.