Fetch normalized product details for a single Fashionphile item using its product handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
Get a Fashionphile product. Returns normalized 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior context: the storefront URL is fixed server-side and the handle is the URL slug. However, it does not describe the exact contents of the returned 'normalized product detail,' error behavior, or any fetch/cache semantics, leaving some ambiguity.
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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying detail about the URL slug is placed where it directly supports parameter use.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, the input semantics, and the general return type. It could be more explicit about the exact fields returned, but that is not critical for correct invocation.
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 only says 'Product handle', but the description adds meaning by explaining that the handle is the product's URL slug and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This helps the agent know exactly what value to pass and what not to pass.
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 clearly states a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (a Fashionphile product), and the scope (one product handle). It distinguishes this singular product lookup from sibling tools like fashionphile_search and fashionphile_products by emphasizing 'one' handle and normalized product detail.
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?
The description clearly establishes when this tool is appropriate: when the agent has a single Fashionphile product handle/slug. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the singular scope and 'handle' requirement provide clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.