Retrieve a complete public Dollar Tree product record by product ID, including SKU and storefront fields, to support product lookup and structured data extraction.
Get one Dollar Tree product record. Returns the complete public product record for one Dollar Tree repository id, including the fields and SKU information supplied by the storefront.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Dollar Tree product id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload shape ('complete public product record... fields and SKU information'), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior on invalid IDs, permission needs, or rate limits for a read-only lookup.
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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action is stated first and the return content second. The phrase 'supplied by the storefront' is slightly redundant with the preceding sentence but not harmful.
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 detail endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and sketches the return payload. The main omission is how an agent obtains a valid product_id, which a sibling-aware reader must infer.
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 single parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description's 'repository id' phrasing restates the schema ('Dollartree product id') without adding format, sourcing, or example detail, so 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 single Dollartree product by ID', and clarifies it is the full public record. It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings such as dollartree_price or dollartree_stock_status, so an agent must infer the split.
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?
'by ID' implies this is a lookup requiring a known product identifier, which hints that discovery tools like dollartree_search or dollartree_product_typeahead come first. However, no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.