Crawlora MCP

tiffany_product

Read-only

Full Tiffany & Co. product detail for one item: name, description, brand, collection, designer, material, gemstone, USD price, live stock status, category tree, every color/style variation, and images. product_id is Tiffany & Co.'s own item id, from a tiffany_search or tiffany_category result's id field.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "product_id": "<product_id>"
    },
    "name": "tiffany_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`product_id`	Yes	Item id, from a search or category result's id field

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / product_id / description
```
Added value: +"Item id, from a search or category result's id field"
```
First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that stock status is 'live' and that all variations/images are included, which is useful behavioral context, but most of the field enumeration likely duplicates the existing output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the two sentences are efficient with no filler. The long field list is justified by communicating the tool's comprehensiveness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema handling return values, and 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps like error handling or rate limits are not essential here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds that product_id is 'Tiffany & Co.'s own item id,' clarifying it is a brand-internal identifier rather than a generic product id. It also reinforces the provenance from search or category results.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific retrieval scope, 'Full Tiffany & Co. product detail for one item,' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/category tools by naming them as the source of the required identifier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states where product_id comes from: 'from a tiffany_search or tiffany_category result's id field,' which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use the tool or naming a direct alternative for detail retrieval, but the flow is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Crawlora MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?