Fetch normalized Rothy's product details by URL handle; the storefront is fixed. Use rothys_products or rothys_search_suggest to discover items, rothys_collections to browse groups, or rothys_product_recommendations for related products.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Required. Product handle (URL slug). |
| 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 the safety and reach profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'normalized' and the storefront is fixed, which is useful context, but says nothing about caching, rate limits, or fallback behavior when a handle is unknown.
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 tight sentences: the purpose and lookup key come first, then the routing alternatives. No redundant or filler content; every clause earns its place.
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 the description need not explain return values. For a single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 single handle parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that it is a URL slug and that the storefront is fixed, adding marginal value but nothing the schema does not already convey. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (normalized Rothy's product details), specifies the lookup key (URL handle) and the fixed-storefront constraint. An agent can clearly tell this apart from rothys_products (list), rothys_search_suggest (discovery), and rothys_product_recommendations (related).
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: use rothys_products or rothys_search_suggest to discover items, rothys_collections to browse groups, and rothys_product_recommendations for related products. Both when-to-use and alternatives are named, leaving nothing to inference.
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.
