Fetch detailed product information from Fashion Nova using a product URL handle, returning structured JSON for a single item.
Get a Fashion Nova product. Returns product detail for one Fashion Nova (https://www.fashionnova.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 burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side (so only the handle is needed) and that it is a read-style retrieval. However it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or failure behavior when a handle is invalid, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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 core action, followed by return scope and the parameter definition. No filler or repetition.
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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and what the parameter means. The main remaining gap is error/missing-handle behavior, but it is otherwise adequate.
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 already 100% ('Product handle'), but the description adds genuine meaning by defining handle as the product's URL slug, which tells the agent what value to supply. This is value beyond the schema, warranting above the baseline 3.
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 Fashion Nova product') and clarifies it returns detail for one product handle, implicitly distinguishing it from the plural list sibling fashionnova_products. It does not name or contrast with any sibling explicitly, keeping it just 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 implied (fetch a single product by its handle) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as fashionnova_products or fashionnova_product_recommendations. The agent must infer that this is the singular-lookup counterpart to the list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.