Retrieve Fashionphile product details using its URL handle, returning clean JSON for a single item.
Get a Fashionphile product. Returns product detail for one Fashionphile (https://www.fashionphile.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.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get'/'Returns' implies a read-only fetch, and it usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side so the agent cannot (and need not) supply it. However, it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid handle.
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 followed by the return value and the parameter clarification. No filler, though the duplicated site URL in parentheses is slightly redundant.
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, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to supply the handle. The absence of annotations means some operational detail is missing, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
The schema describes the single parameter only as 'Product handle', so the description's clarification that it is 'the product's URL slug' adds real meaning beyond the schema and helps the agent format the value correctly.
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?
The description names a specific verb (Get) and resource (Fashionphile product) and states the return shape ('product detail for one ... product handle'). It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like fashionphile_products or fashionphile_search, so it falls 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 the singular 'one ... product' phrasing, which suggests it is the single-item lookup rather than the list/search variants. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.