Fetch full product details for a Brooklinen item by passing its URL slug handle. Use it to retrieve structured storefront data for one product.
Get a Brooklinen product. Returns product detail for one Brooklinen (https://www.brooklinen.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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that the handle is a URL slug, but it does not describe return fields, error behavior, auth needs, or rate limits.
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, front-loaded with the main action. There is slight redundancy between 'Get a Brooklinen product' and 'Returns product detail', but the extra context about handle and fixed storefront 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?
For a simple one-parameter detail endpoint with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, input semantics, and fixed storefront. It could say more about what product detail includes, especially since there is no output schema.
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 schema already defines handle as a string. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that handle is the product's URL slug and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side.
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 and resource: get one Brooklinen product and return product detail by product handle. The singular handle framing helps distinguish it from the plural brooklinen_products sibling, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
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?
Implies usage when a product handle is known, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to brooklinen_products, brooklinen_search_suggest, or related product tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.