Get a single editorial collection and its curated products by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| theme | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| products | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes 'curated products', indicating a non-obvious quality (not just any products). This enriches understanding beyond structured metadata.
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?
Single sentence of 12 words, no redundancy. Every word contributes essential meaning: verb, resource, scope, and identifier method. Ideal length for a straightforward retrieval tool.
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 an output schema present, return values do not need elaboration. However, the description lacks details on error behavior (e.g., 404 if slug not found), case sensitivity, or pagination implications of the 'limit' parameter. Complexity is low, so this is a minor gap, but enough to prevent a 4.
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% for 2 parameters. The description only mentions 'slug' with no explanation of its format or constraints, and completely omits the 'limit' parameter. The baseline of 3 is not justified because the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter roles.
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?
Description clearly states the specific action ('Get'), the resource ('single editorial collection and its curated products'), and the identifier ('by slug'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_collections (which lists multiple) and get_product (which retrieves a single product without related collection context).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_collections or search. The description implies usage when you have a specific slug, but fails to mention that for browsing or filtering, other tools are more appropriate. Context is implied but not articulated.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but 'fetch' and 'get_product' have overlapping functionality (both provide full detail and buying options), and 'search' vs 'search_catalog' could confuse agents about which to use for general search. Otherwise clear.
Predominantly uses 'get_' prefix for retrieval tools and 'search' for search tools, but 'fetch' and 'lookup_catalog' deviate slightly from the pattern, reducing consistency.
13 tools is well-scoped for a commerce server covering product discovery, pricing, deals, collections, and gift ideas without being overwhelming or sparse.
Covers key product research and price comparison workflows, but lacks tools for user interaction (e.g., wishlists, purchasing) or multi-product comparisons, which would enhance completeness.
