Retrieve details for a single Allbirds product by its handle, returning structured JSON for commerce or catalog use.
Get a Allbirds product. Returns product detail for one Allbirds (https://www.allbirds.com) product handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side; handle is the product's URL slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Product handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side (so no URL/domain parameter is needed) and that the handle is a URL slug, but it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or whether the result is cached or live.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return content, and parameter/URL semantics are front-loaded with zero 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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and handle semantics adequately. Minor gaps around error/not-found behavior remain but are not critical.
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% so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's bare 'Product handle' by clarifying it is the product's URL slug and that the storefront URL is server-fixed. That extra format/context meaning lifts it above baseline.
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+resource ('Get a Allbirds product') and adds scope ('one ... product handle', 'product detail'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool allbirds_products. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, but the singular scope makes the purpose clear.
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 implies lookup-by-handle usage, but never states when to prefer this over allbirds_products, allbirds_search_suggest, or allbirds_product_recommendations. Usage must be inferred from the singular scope rather than being spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.