Fetch a Capterra product profile by numeric product ID to retrieve its name, description, category, and aggregate rating.
Get a Capterra product. Returns a Capterra product profile: name, description, category, and aggregate rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Capterra product id (the numeric id in a /p/{id}/{slug}/ URL) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0v1.6.0v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds little beyond the field list. It implies a straightforward read but says nothing about rate limits, whether the profile is cached/live, error behavior for unknown ids, or how it relates to capterra_reviews.
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 with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, disclosing the returned profile fields is genuinely useful and covers the main informational need. The omission of how to acquire product_id is the notable gap.
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 100% and the schema already explains the id format (numeric id from a /p/{id}/{slug}/ URL). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a Capterra product") and enumerates the returned fields (name, description, category, aggregate rating), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling capterra_search or capterra_reviews, leaving the reader to infer the division of labor.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Critically, it never explains that product_id must first be obtained from capterra_search, which is the one piece of routing information an agent needs for an id-lookup tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.