get_machine_detailПолная карточка станка по product_number (поддерживаются дробные id, например "1.1"): характеристики, цена руб./USD, изображения, комплектация, опции, 3D-модели, видео и URL страницы товара.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | product_number станка |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| machine | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "machine": {
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "machine"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that fractional IDs like '1.1' are supported and by listing the broad set of data returned, which goes beyond the structured annotations.
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 a single dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the returned data arranged in a clear colon-separated list. It contains no filler and does not repeat annotation facts.
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?
With one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description supplies all needed call context. It covers the ID format and the full scope of returned data, leaving no critical gaps.
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 schema already fully documents id as product_number, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important detail that fractional IDs such as '1.1' are accepted, which is not present in the schema and helps prevent incorrect calls.
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 returns a complete machine card for a product_number and enumerates the content: characteristics, price in RUB/USD, images, options, 3D models, video, and URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_machine_images or calculate_machine_price, even without naming them.
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 strongly implies when to use the tool: when a full machine card is needed by product_number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the enumerated return fields make the boundary with narrower sibling tools evident.
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.