Fetch Product Hunt product details by product slug or ID. Results include the core product profile and launch metadata; use this when you already know which product to inspect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource identifier. |
| 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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results contain the core profile plus launch metadata, but that content is also conveyed by the output schema, and it says nothing about auth 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the selection precondition. 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 single-param, read-only lookup with a full output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing, though it could acknowledge lookup-failure behavior.
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% and the schema calls the param only 'Resource identifier'. The description adds meaning by stating the id accepts either a product slug or an ID, which is genuine value beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Product Hunt product details'), with the input method ('by product slug or ID'). It is clear what the tool does, though sibling differentiation from producthunt_search is only implied rather than named.
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?
'Use this when you already know which product to inspect' states the precondition for choosing this tool, effectively routing the agent away from search-style tools. It does not name a specific alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
