Retrieve structured details for a single Everlane product by passing its URL slug handle, returning clean JSON for one item.
Get a Everlane product. Returns product detail for one Everlane (https://www.everlane.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 (no domain parameter needed) and that it returns detail for one product, but it says nothing about failure modes for an invalid handle, auth, 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 action and no filler. The opening 'Get a Everlane product' is slightly redundant with the following sentence, but nothing is wasted.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, the identifier format, and the fixed-URL behavior. Only return-shape or error behavior is left implicit, which is minor here.
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% with a single param, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Product handle' by defining it as the product's URL slug, telling the agent the expected format.
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 Everlane product') and clarifies the scope as a single product identified by handle, which separates it implicitly from the list-oriented sibling everlane_products. It does not explicitly name any sibling to distinguish against, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: by saying the handle is the product's URL slug, the description hints the agent must obtain a slug (e.g. from search or sitemap) before calling. There is no explicit when-to-use vs everlane_products / everlane_product_recommendations guidance or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.