Farfetch product detail: name, brand, color, description, images, category breadcrumb, and every size variant with its own price and availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| gender | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that every size variant is returned with its own price and availability, which is real behavioral context, but it omits auth needs, slug format expectations, and error behavior for a detail endpoint.
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 that opens with the tool's identity and then lists payload contents. Efficient with no filler, though the enumerated field list is slightly list-heavy rather than explanatory.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly needed, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a two-parameter lookup tool the complete absence of parameter guidance leaves the description only minimally adequate.
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 0%, so both required parameters (slug and gender) are undocumented anywhere. The description never mentions them, and gender being a required identifier is non-obvious; the description does not compensate for this gap.
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 the specific resource ('Farfetch product detail') and enumerates the fields returned, making the tool's function unmistakable versus farfetch_search or farfetch_categories. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource focus is clear enough to distinguish.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus farfetch_search or farfetch_categories, no prerequisites, and no mention of what inputs are required. The agent must infer that this is the detail endpoint reached after a search.
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.
